Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill,

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY BOARD.

Mr. SCURR: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a recent vacancy on the Indian Railway Board has been filled by a European; and will be state whether no Indian was considered suitable for the post?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): An impending vacancy in the Financial Commissionership of Railways in India will be filled by a European, whom the
Government of India, after careful consideration of the claims of possible candidates, have selected as the best man for the post.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS, MEHUNBARA.

Mr. SCURR: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the allegations of torturing prisoners made against the police at Mehunbara, in the Bombay Presidency; and whether he will cause a judicial inquiry to be made into the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: I have at present seen only a brief newspaper reference to alleged police terrorism at Mehunbara, and am confident that the local Government will take action on it, if necessary.

SUBORDINATE MEDICAL SERVICE (PROMOTION).

Colonel APPLIN: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that no promotions to commissioned rank have been made in the Indian subordinate medical service since 1923; and, in view of the number of qualified men who are eligible for and awaiting promotion, will he take steps to ensure that their claims are dealt with at once?

Earl WINTERTON: The circumstances were brought to my Noble Friend's notice by the Anglo-Indian deputation which waited upon him last summer. The Government of India are being asked for an early report on the subject.

BURMAN COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the Skeen Committee by Burman commissioned officers; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to promote and encourage the inclusion of educated Burmans in the enlistment for the Burman Rifles?

Earl WINTERTON: I have so far seen only Press reports of the evidence. Burmans can compete for commissions in the Indian Army on the same footing as Indians. The question of enlistment would appear to be outside the scope of the committee to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Committee have already dealt with this matter?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, but the point is that the Committee have not yet reported, and until they do report, I do not think any useful purpose could be served by my saying anything.

COOLIE EMIGRATION (STRAITS SETTLEMENTS).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any figures to show how many coolies have emigrated from India in each of the last three years for employment in the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States; how many of these were engaged for work under Government Departments or Government contractors and how many for industrial or agricultural work under private employers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The returns for 1925 are not yet available, but for the previous three years the figures are as follow:—

Males.
Females.


1922
…
…
…
28,273
6,801


1923
…
…
…
20,966
5,902


1924
…
…
…
27,944
9,165

As regards the second and third parts of the question, I have no information, but I will ask the Governor for a report.

CURRENCY COMMISSION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when
he hopes the Government will be in a position to publish the Report of the India Currency Commission?

Earl WINTERTON: The Commission are now engaged in taking evidence in London. I am not in a position to say when the Report will be available for publication.

YENANGYAUNG OILFIELDS (WAGES DISPUTE).

Mr. SCURR: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of men employed by the Burma Oil Company in the Yenang-yaung oilfields; what percentage of the men are on strike; what is the daily wage of the various grades of workmen; and what are the demands of the men on strike?

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that there are about 8,000 Indian and Burmese employés on these oilfields, all of whom struck work on 1st February as a protest against the substitution of daily for monthly wages. The number of strikers was reduced to 2,000 by 11th February. It is now reported in the Press that the strike is practically at an end, and that work is proceeding normally. The information asked for in the third part of the question is not available.

NATIVE LABOUR.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is any system under which the Government of India undertakes to supply native labour for works required by a Government Department outside India; and, if so, how many labourers have been thus recruited in each of the last three years and where have they gone?

Earl WINTERTON: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to schemes which were sanctioned under the Indian Emigration Act, 1922, for the assisted emigration of unskilled labourers to Ceylon, Malaya, and for one year to Mauritius. The Government of India does not undertake to supply these labourers; the Government of the country of immigration is responsible for their recruitment under conditions prescribed by the Government of India, and for the conditions of their work on arrival, which, I understand, is for the most part under private employers.
The Indian statistics show the following numbers of emigrants under the Act to Ceylon and Mauritius:—

1922–23:


Ceylon
…
…
…
80,500


Mauritius
…
…
…
Nil

Later figures are not available.

As regards emigration to Malaya, figures will, I understand, be given in reply to the question No. 6 on the subject by the hon. Member for the Kidderminster Division of Worcestershire.

BENGAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT.

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is any limit to the time which the Government of India propose to keep under arrest the 110 persons who are detained without trial under the provisions of the Bengal Criminal Justice Act?

Earl WINTERTON: Out of 119 persons under the Act, 67 are not under arrest but are required to stay in their own homes or other prescribed places. The validity of every order of restriction is by law limited to a period of one year; thereafter the order must be renewed if, on consideration, this appears to he necessary. The Government of India have publicly announced that it is their considered policy that wherever it is possible to mitigate or remove all restriction it should be done; and that they hope that as things improve the restrictions may either be entirely removed or grow less and less as time goes on.

TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Government of India has proof of the existence of political societies in India which seek to advance their objects by criminal methods; and, if so, will he give the names of the principal of these societies?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer to what is said as to the existence of terrorist organisations in the Papers presented to Parliament, Command No.
2288 of 1924 and No. 34 of 1925, presented under the Government of India Act, also to Command Paper 2309 of 1924 as to the Cawnpore Conspiracy Case. As to the second part, I am not prepared to specify by name those organisations which are considered to be the principal offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA.

MR. ORMSBY-GORE'S VISIT.

Viscount SANDON: 12
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Under-Secretary will visit the British mandated territories in the Cameroons and Togoland during his West African tour?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that the time which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to spend in West Africa will not suffice to enable a visit to be made to the British Cameroons or British Togoland.

CIVIL SERVANTS (LEAVE).

Colonel DAY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the length of residential service by civil servants in West Africa, without leave, under existing agreements, together with the length of service, without leave, operating under agreements made prior to 1914?

Mr. AMERY: Under the old West African leave regulations the normal length of a tour of resident service entitling to leave was 12 months, which could lie extended in certain circumstances. Under the new leave regulations the average length of a tour of service is about 18 months. The actual length depends upon the circumstances of each case.

Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that it is almost impossible for Europeans to live out in West Africa for so long a period without leave, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending it?

Mr. AMERY: When the new leave regulations were introduced the point was very carefully considered, in view of the general improvement in health conditions on the West Coast, but the subject is being carefully watched, and if there should be any evidence that the period were too long we should always consider the matter.

BAHAMAS.

Mr. JACOB: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that negotiations have taken place for the sale of a certain island in the Bahama group to persons of United States nationality; and whether he is prepared to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. AMERY: From the information at my disposal, I have no reason to think that the suggestion made in the first part of my hon. Friend's question is correct. As regards the latter part, I am already in communication with the Governor of the Bahamas in regard to the terms upon which portions of outlying islands may be leased to persons of British and of foreign nationality. I am not prepared to make a statement pending the receipt of the Governor's reply, but I may point out that neither lease nor sale of land in British territory to foreign individuals in any way alters the nationality of the territory.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE LAND (ALIENATION).

Mr. SNELL: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Imperial Government have made any change in the policy hitherto adopted in relation to the alienation of native land in Kenya Colony; whether by sale or lease of such land to white settlers; and whether he is prepared to make a statement on the subject in view of the apprehensions that have been excited among the native population?

Mr. AMERY: I am not yet able to add anything to the replies which I gave on 8th March to the questions of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris).

SEDITION CHARGES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a copy of the petition from the Kikuyu Central Association to His Excellency the Governor; and does he intend to take any action to accede to the request contained therein that Messrs. Harry Thuku, George Muge Kenji, and David
Waigango, who have been imprisoned on grounds of sedition since 1922, shall be released?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part, therefore, does not yet arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider afresh the question of the liberation of Harry Thuku and the others? I think the case was gone into by the Coloniel Office some years ago. Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it again, and see whether the further detention of these people justified?

Mr. AMERY: I will look into the case again.

SETTLERS' CONVENTION, NAIROBI.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the attendance of Government officials at the Settlers' Convention in Nairobi. Kenya Colony, there to be questioned and criticised upon the policy and work of Government Departments, with reporters and delegates present, is a contravention of C. O. Regulation, No. 45, which lays it down that no public officer, whether on duty or on leave of absence, is to allow himself to be interviewed on questions of public policy, he will instruct the Governor that the practice of allowing officials to be interviewed by the convention is to cease, and that settler bodies should be invited to obtain desired information as to Departmental activities by questions in legislative council by their elected members?

Mr. AMERY: I am not prepared to admit that, where the consent of the Governor has been obtained, it is a contravention of the Regulation mentioned for a Government official to discuss with or explain to an unofficial body matters in which they are interested; but there is certainly no obligation on an official to attend on such a body.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it is detrimental to the esprit de corps of the Service, as well as, possibly, to the best interests of the Colony, that officials should be liable to be hauled over the coals by an unofficial body?

Mr. AMERY: It depends upon what happens. In a matter of that sort I think the Governor must be the best judge as to whom his officials should meet to discuss matters.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is there any other Colony or Protectorate where a similar procedure is adopted?

Mr. AMERY: I should like to have notice of that, but I should think it is extremely probable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not really consider that the proceedings in this last Convention, when the settlers passed a vote of censure on a Government official, do not justify the officials in universally adhering to the Regulations?

Mr. AMERY: As I explained in the previous answer, I have not seen the account of what happened on that occasion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Lord Delamere moved a vote of censure on the Commissioner?

Mr. AMERY: I have not had official information.

SISAL EXPORTS.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of sisal exported from Kenya and Tanganyika territory for the three years 1923–25, respectively?

Mr. AMERY: The quantities exported are, for Kenya, 8,820 tons in 1923, 11,416 tons in 1924, and 14,364 tons in 1925, and, for Tanganyika, 12,846 tons in 1923, 18,428 tons in 1924, and 16,353 tons up to November, 1925. The figures for 1925 are provisional, and, for Tanganyika, incomplete.

NATIVES (PUNISHMENT).

Mr. SNELL (for Mr. W. BAKER): 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at an inquiry presided over by the Chief Justice of Kenya, Colony it was established that an assistant district commissioner had subjected natives to punishment and/or detention without trial at the instance of local settlers; and whether he will state what action, if any, the Kenya Government has taken to deal with these irregularities and prevent their recurrence?

Mr. AMERY: I have seen in the local Press a report of the finding of the Commission of Inquiry, which showed that in one case an assistant district commissioner had detained and used as a porter a native against whom a complaint had been received to the effect that he had overstayed the leave granted by his employer. On the officer's departure on leave the trial was expedited by his successor after the native had been detained for 35 days. While I entirely agree with the view of the Commission that "the sooner it is realised that extrajudicial forms of punishment cannot be applied by officers of the Administration the better," I have no reason to suppose that the case represents more than an isolated error of judgment on the part of a single officer. I will, however, draw the attention of the Governor to the hon. Member's question.

INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (PORTUGUESE NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. SNELL (for Mr. BAKER): 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the local Government in Kenya has issued permission to the D.W.A. Plantations Company and the B.E.A. Fibre and Industrial Company, both companies being registered in London, to recruit native labour from Portuguese East Africa; and whether he will state what steps he is taking to safeguard the rights of such labour?

Mr. AMERY: This matter was raised in the question of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney on the 22nd February. I have drawn the attention of the Governor of Kenya to it.

EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT.

Mr. THURTLE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Kenya Colony expressed the view of the Colonial Office when he declared at the Conference of Governors of East African Territories, on 26th January, his anxiety that the policy of European settlement which had been established in Kenya should be promoted in other parts of East Africa, and also when he declared at Eldoret, on 17th December, 1925, that, after communications, what was wanted badly in Kenya was new settlers and capital?

Mr. AMERY: Where land in districts suitable for European settlement is available, either from unoccupied Crown land or by purchase or lease from the present European holders, and where there is a supply of native labour which will be attracted by the terms of employment offered, I am entirely of the opinion of the Governor of Kenya that European settlement in East Africa is to be welcomed. There are, however, in these tropical dependencies large areas where these conditions are not fulfilled, and where the country can be better developed by the encouragement of native cultivators.

—
1913–14.
1922–23.
1923–24.


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.





Currants
…
…
…
…
Cwts.
273,770
209,906
304,294


Raisins
…
…
…
…
Cwts.
372,782
590,406


Apples
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
170,267
1,304,715
1,028,168


Pears
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
59,644
296,123
394,230


Plums and Prunes
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
371,303
1,060,340
1,168,836


Peaches
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
394,379
1,649,759
1,000,732


Apricots
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
1,001,308
2,101,421
1,169,975


Figs
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
33,151
56,604
27,744


Nectarines
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
Not stated
29,859
12,473


Other
…
…
…
…
Lbs.
1,026
669

—
1910–11.*
1922–23.
1923–24.


UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.





Production on Farms—





Apples
…
…
Lbs.
115,964
216,562
Not available.


Apricots
…
…
Lbs.
635,370
1,143,115


Figs
…
…
Lbs.
54,064
242,816


Peaches
…
…
Lbs.
2,575,049
2,394,336


Pears
…
…
Lbs.
178,306
286,458


Prunes and Plums
…
…
Lbs.
641,350
1,312,405


Stalk Raisins
…
…
Lbs.
125,310
2,215,642


Loose Raisins
…
…
Lbs.
2,230,787
5,891,976


Sultana Raisins
…
…
Lbs.
157,572
3,713,694


Currants
…
…
Lbs.
11,159
179,364


Dried Hermitage Grapes
…
…
Lbs.
Not stated
2,217,634


Other dried Wine Grapes
…
…
Lbs.
69,412


Factory Production—
Lbs.




Dried Fruits
…
…
Lbs.
Not stated
1,353,575

—
—
1921.†
—


DOMINION OF CANADA.





Evaporated Apples
…
Lbs.
—
4,895,641
—


Evaporated Apples canned
…
Lbs.
—
570,000
—


Evaporated Apples Chop and waste
…
Lbs.
—
2,803,309
—


*Particulars for 1913–14 are not available.
†Particulars not available for other years.

EMPIRE DRIED FRUITS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity of dried fruits produced within the Empire in the years 1913, 1924 and 1925, respectively?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer contains tables of figures and, with the permission of my hon. Friend, it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following tables show the available information regarding the production of dried fruits in the British Empire:

Exports of dried fruits from other parts of the British Empire (including Protectorates and Mandated territories),

—
1913.
1923.
1924.


CYPRUS
Cwts.
Cwts.
Cwts.


Raisins
…
…
…
…
…
…
79,452
37,731
91,733


IRAQ.*





Date
…
…
…
…
…
…
Not available
2,474,000
2,736,000


ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN.





Dates
…
…
…
…
…
…
54,819
74,031
82,456


Dried Fruit
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
20
79


* For the 12 months ended 31st March of the years following those stated.

MECCA AND MEDINA (PILGRIMAGES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is a British representative at Mecca and/or Medina; and what steps are being taken to safeguard the interests of His Majesty's Moslem subjects on pilgrimage to these Holy Places?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government are in constant and friendly communication, through the acting British agent and consul at Jeddah, with the Hejaz authorities, who are reported to be making suitable arrangements to safeguard the interests of pilgrims proceeding to and from the Holy Places of Islam.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the Hejaz authorities? Does he mean the representatives of Ibn Saud, who has control of this area?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: They are the authorities of the district, who are now under the supreme control of Ibn Saud.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the interests of British Moslems are being safeguarded?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, I understand so.

in which important quantities are produced, were as follow:

SULTAN OF NEJD (BRITISH COMMUNICATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered further the question of maintaining a British representative at the Court of Ibn Saud, Sultan of Nejd; and what decision has been arrived at?

Mr. AMERY: No new decision has been arrived at. The existing arrangements for maintaining communication with the Sultan of Nejd are considered adequate for present purposes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What are the present arrangements for communication?

Mr. AMERY: We communicate at present through more than one channel. There is the British Resident in the Persian Gulf, and, as regards Iraq and Transjordanian affairs, there are the High Commissioners of Palestine and Iraq.

TRANSJORDANIA (TOURIST TRAFFIC).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, following the constantly increasing tourist traffic to Palestine, any efforts are being made to open up Transjordania for the same purpose, in view of its interesting historical remains and the great benefits which would accrue to its exchequer from this additional source of revenue?

Mr. AMERY: The importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend will
certainly be borne in mind, though I would add that the organisation of tourist traffic is primarily a matter for private enterprise, and must necessarily depend to a large extent on hotel accommodation.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration that roads are somewhat necessary, and will he say whether any further road beyond that from Jerusalem to Amman is being opened?

Mr. AMERY: I did look into that question when I was out there. The position has been very much improved in the last 18 months, and I hope it will continue to improve. I would add that I fully agree with my right hon. Friend as to the necessity for good roads.

EMPIRE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the desirability of establishing a market for the sale of Dominion produce, and especially of Dominion and Colonial fruit, in connection with the proposed removal of Covent Garden market?

Mr. AMERY: I have no doubt that when the necessary arrangements in connection with the scheme for Empire marketing are further advanced the suggestion of my hon. Friend will be amongst those which will receive consideration, though I would remind him that the interests of the home producer have also to be borne in mind.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when and how it is proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Committee with regard to the marketing of Empire supplies?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to a number of questions on this subject on let March last, as the correspondence with the Dominions is not yet complete.

CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (TRANSPORT).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint an officer at the Colonial Office to act in respect of transport and railway questions in the various Crown Colonies and Protectorates in a similar manner to the officer appointed to deal with questions relating to health and sanitation?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the necessity for improving the communications throughout the Colonies. Protectorates and Mandated Territories in Africa, he will consider the advisability of appointing an official at the Colonial Office whose especial duty would he to co-ordinate and to advise upon all schemes of transport development?

Mr. AMERY: I will answer these questions together. I am fully aware of the importance of co-ordinating the development of railway and other communications in adjoining territories, and for this reason I am taking steps to ensure that there is such co-ordination in East Africa. For isolated territories such as those in West Africa the arrangements which have obtained in the past for obtaining advice have worked satisfactorily, and I see no reason for making any alteration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT.

Mr. VIANT: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who carried on negotiations on behalf of British interests in the attempt to settle the strike and boycott at Hong Kong; what proposals for settlement were put forward by the British representatives; and which of the conditions put forward by the Chinese were rejected by the British representatives?

Mr. AMERY: A copy of a communique which was issued to the Press by the Hong Kong Government has already been sent to the hon. Member, and I cannot at present add anything further to my reply to his question of the 1st March.

CLOSING OF TIENTSIN PORT.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House regarding the situation in China, particularly with reference to the threat of military operations made by the diplomatic representatives of the Powers at Peking last week?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On the 9th March a Shantung Naval Flotilla operating against the National Forces defending Peking attempted to force an entry into the Tientsin River, and bombarded the Taku forts at the mouth of the river. The Nationalist Commander of the forts closed the river to navigation in violation of the Protocol of 1901 between China and the Powers by firing on all passing vessels and by laying mines. On 10th March the representatives of the Treaty Powers in Peking notified the Chinese Government of the necessity of removing the obstacles to free navigation in and out of Tientsin, reserving their right to take action themselves to that end for the maintenance of the Protocol. Similar notifications were conveyed to the respective headquarters of the various Chinese forces engaging in hostilities at the entrance to the harbour of Tientsin. Although a few foreign merchant vessels have passed in and out by local arrangement, full effect has not yet been given to the demands of the Protocol Powers, and on 13th March two Japanese destroyers proceeding up river to Tientsin were fired on by Chinese from the forts at the entrance to the river, and retired. His Majesty's Government are in consultation with His Majesty's Minister in regard to the situation created by these incidents.

Mr. BECKETT: On what grounds and on whose authority is the accusation of treaty breaking made?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is quite clear from the terms of the Treaty.

Mr. BECKETT: On whose authority is it stated that the Chinese actually did that? How is it clear?

Major the Marquess of TICHHELD: Is it not the duty of a Member of the House to back his own country?

Mr. BECKETT: Is it the duty Of a Member of the House to take his information from the "Daily Mail"?

SIERRA LEONE (SLAVE DEALING).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to slave dealing in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone?

Mr. AMERY: Slave dealing has been prohibited by law in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone since 1897. I informed the hon. Member on 30th November last that I had no reason to think that any active traffic existed, and I have received no reports since that date to cause me to modify that statement.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the report which I sent him?

Mr. AMERY: At the moment I have not seen it, but certainly I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many people have been accepted from Scotland under the new cheap passage emigration scheme to Canada to the end of February; how many of them are experienced farm workers; and how many arc domestic servants?

Mr. AMERY: I am informed by the High Commissioner that the number of people accepted from Scotland for assisted passages to Canada, under the new Agreement, to the end of February is 959. Of these, 650 are members of 130 families who are going out to settle on farms under what is known as the 3,000 Families Scheme; 181 are farm workers, of whom about 150 are experienced, and 128 are domestic servants.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY (DOMINION VIEWS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received from the Dominions replies as to their views regarding adhesion to the Locarno Treaty;
and whether he has asked for or received their permission to publish the correspondence?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the supplementary answer which I gave in connection with a question by the hon. Member for Hackney South, on the 8th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. TAYLOR: 38 and 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) when the Report on credit insurance will be available; and whether moneys voted for the purpose of exports credits under the Overseas Trade Acts will be used in connection with the contemplated new scheme of credit insurance;
(2) if the new credit insurance scheme will be available for the financing of Anglo-Russian trade?

Mr. SAMUEL: I hope that the Report of the Credit Insurance Committee may be available about the end of this month, but I am unable to indicate what the Committee's Report will contain. As regards the application to Russia of any proposals which may emerge from the Report, the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the granting of Government credits for Russian trade was explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the Debate on the Committee stage of the Trade Facilities Bill, and I can add nothing to the statement which he then made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BANKING FACILITIES (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. TAYLOR: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can name the countries in which no banking facilities exist other than banks controlled, wholly or mainly, by persons who are not of British nationality?

Mr. SAMUEL: The more important countries in which no British controlled bank is established are, so far as information is available: Bolivia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Esthonia, Finland, Formosa, Corea, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Soviet Russia, Sweden.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE EXHIBITION BUILDINGS.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, seeing that the Dominion Governments have presented their exhibition buildings at Wembley to the guarantors of the British Empire Exhibition, he will state the total value of these buildings; and what is the estimated amount that will be saved to the Treasury in respect of its share as a guarantor as a result of the gifts made by the Dominion Governments?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the liquidators of the British Empire Exhibition that it is impossible to give any figure as to the value of the buildings at Wembley which have been generously presented to the liquidators by the Governments of certain Dominions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDITS.

Mr. LOOKER: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give the House any information as to the working of short-term agricultural credits or chattel mortgages for agricultural purposes in the United States of America or in Canada, and particularly as to its success or otherwise from a banking point of view?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Some information on this question is contained in the Report on Agricultural Credit recently issued by my Department. I shall be happy to supply my hon. Friend with a copy of this Report if he has not already seen it.

WHEAT.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of wheat and wheat, flour imported into this country during 1925 and the countries from which it was exported, together with the average price of wheat per quarter of 4½ cwts., and flour per sack of 280 lbs. received from each country?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The quantities and average declared values of wheat and wheat flour imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during 1925, distinguishing the countries of origin, were as follows:


1. Wheat.


From
Imports.
Average declared value per 504 lbs


Cwts.
Quarters of 504 lbs.









s.
d.


United States
…
…
…
…
27,205,333
6,045,630
63
7


Argentina
…
…
…
…
11,960,128
2,657,806
64
7


British India
…
…
…
…
7,324,150
1,627,589
64
9


Australia
…
…
…
…
16,305,958
3,623,546
64
5


Canada
…
…
…
…
29,818,689
6,626,375
61
11


Other Countries
…
…
…
…
5,119,087
1,137,575
56
4


Total
…
…
…
…
97,733,345
21,718,521
63
0

2. Wheat Meal and Flour.


From
Imports.
Average declared value per 280 lbs.


Cwts.
Sacks of 280 lbs.









s.
d.


France
…
…
…
…
58,580
23,432
41
1


United States
…
…
…
…
2,759,740
1,103,896
47
2


Argentina
…
…
…
…
409,758
163,903
29
11


Australia
…
…
…
…
1,487,474
594,990
45
5


Canada
…
…
…
…
4,220,134
1,688,054
46
1


Other Countries
…
…
…
…
186,178
74,471
34
2


Total
…
…
…
…
9,121,864
3,648,746
45
4

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in placing contracts for flour, bread, or biscuits, he will insert a Clause to ensure a proportion of British grain being used; and if he will consult with his colleagues with a view of a similar Clause being inserted in all Government contracts?

Mr. GUINNESS: No such contracts are made by my Department. I will consider the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I see considerable practical difficulties in the proposal.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of wheat grown in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland during 1925; the average market price obtained; and the amount used for milling, seeding, feeding, and malting, respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I
propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The production of wheat in 1925 in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was a follows:

Tons.


England and Wales
…
1,360,000


Scotland
…
54,000


Northern Ireland
…
3,000


United Kingdom
1,417,000

The average price of British wheat in England and Wales as ascertained under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921, during the present season (September, 1925, to February, 1926, both inclusive) was 11s. 6d. per cwt. or 51s. 9d. per quarter of 504 lbs.

As far as England and Wales are concerned, it is estimated that about two-thirds of the home crop is milled, while about 10 per cent. is used for seed and 15 per cent. for poultry food and other purposes, the remainder being tail corn and screenings. I am not aware whether any wheat is used for malting, but in any case the amount so used must be very small.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if experiments have been carried out to diminish the water content in British wheat; and if research is being carried out with a view of growing British wheat which has the advantages claimed for foreign wheat by the bakers?

Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant Friend, no doubt, refers to the research work upon the breeding of improved wheats which has been conducted for many years, with very successful results, at the University of Cambridge under the direction of Sir Rowland Biffen. This work covers the two points mentioned in the question. A full account of the wheat breeding investigations at the Cambridge Plant Breeding Institute will be published by the Ministry in the course of a few weeks, and I shall be happy to send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the publication as soon as it is ready.

Colonel APPLIN: May I ask if British wheat has not a better food value than any other foreign wheat?

Mr. GUINNESS: As my hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware, the difficulty is that certain British wheat contains a great deal more moisture, and does not give a loaf of the same cubic capacity for the same weight of flour, but the new Yeoman II wheat gives as good a loaf as Manitoba Hard.

BARLEY (FOREIGN IMPORTS).

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount and average price per quarter of 400 pounds of foreign barley imported into this country during 1925 for malting, distilling, and feeding purposes, respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS: The quantity of barley imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1925 was 4,444,635 quarters of 400 lbs. (15,873,695 cwts.) and the average declared value 37s. 7d. per quarter.
I regret that no means exist of ascertaining to what purpose imported barley is put, but it is estimated that in a normal year about 35 per cent. of the imports are used for malting or distilling.
The average annual price per quarter of 400 lbs. in 1925 of certain varieties of imported barley at four representative markets in England was

s.
d.


Californian Malting
…
47
10


Canadian Feed
…
35
5


American
…
36
7

AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS (SURVEY).

Mr. BUXTON: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to institute a survey of agricultural conditions in selected areas on the lines of the survey now being conducted under the Scottish Board of Agriculture?

Mr. GUINNESS: During the past few months my Department has been making inquiries from crop reporters throughout England and Wales with a view of obtaining as much information as possible regarding agricultural conditions. When this information is available the question of conducting some more detailed investigations in selected areas will be further considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the statistics that are being obtained include the rates at present being paid by the farmers in the cases of which this is a sample? As this is a very important item in the profit-making of these farms, could that information be obtained at the same time?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have already answered that question. We are going into the question of the information for which we may ask, hut we first want to see what results we can get from the crop reporters.

Mr. SKELTON: Would it not be possible to obtain, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing, the typical farmers' budgets in the arable districts, so that there may be definite information before the country as to the practical state of agriculture in each district?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will go into the whole of this question, but it is very difficult to get, figures which are at all comparable or convincing.

WAGES BOARDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. FENBY): 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many women are members of agricultural wages boards; Low many of these are appointed members; how many represent the employers; and how many represent the workers?

Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. and gallant Member the authority of the hon. Member to ask the question?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I have had a direct request from the hon. Member.

Mr. GUINNESS: Seven women are members of agricultural wages committees, four of them being impartial members and three representatives of workers. In addition, one of the appointed members of the Central Agricultural Wages Board is a woman.

STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 46 and 47.
asked the Prime Minister (1) if trade witnesses were called before the Committee which investigated the case of the steel industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and, if so, will he publish their names;
(2) if he will explain to the House whether the Committee appointed to investigate the state of the steel industry was a Committee of the Cabinet or an independent Committee appointed by the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The application of the steel industry was not referred to a Committee for inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure for the reasons which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 21st December last. A preliminary investigation on a wider basis into the state of the industry was conducted by the Committee of Civil Research, but as I explained in reply to my hon. Friend on the 8th February it would be contrary to established practice to give information relating to the composition or proceedings of a Cabinet Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take it that this question is now
closed and will not be reopened, and that there is no further question of safeguarding steel?

The PRIME MINISTER: There are very few questions in this world of which I would say they are closed.

RUSSIA (BRITISH TRADE).

Mr. BECKETT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to reopen negotiations with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics Government with a view to removing any present difficulties in the way of extending export facilities and encouraging trade between the two peoples?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply. The attitude of His Majesty's Government was defined in the replies given to the hon. Member for Lincoln on 9th December last and to the hon. Member for North Lambeth on 10th February.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the discussion in this House last week the opinion was expressed upon all sides of the House that it would be well for the two Governments to get together, and that there is nothing in the answer to which I am referred which suggests that His Majesty's Government is taking any action whatever?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a short time ago that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the initiative in this matter now rests with the Soviet Government.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last step towards breaking off negotiations was taken by the present Government, and therefore it is open to them to state the conditions under which they are prepared to reopen negotiations?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that one of the best ways to increase further trade is to square up past accounts?

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be a resumption of last week's Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the staff of the Ministry was 660 in 1914 and 1,500 in 1925, approximately, and that the aggregate of salaries in those respective years were approximately £125,000 and £490,000; whether he will explain the reasons for these increases; and whether he is taking steps to reduce the figures?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the position. It is difficult to state, within the limits of a Parliamentary reply, all the reasons for these increases. Briefly, the increase is due partly to extension of old services and partly to new services being undertaken by the Ministry. For further details I would refer my hon. Friend to the second Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, 1925, which states that the Committee "feel that the administration of the Ministry is efficient and that the enormous increase in expenditure since 1914 is due to a line of policy imposed upon the Ministry by Parliament, for which the Ministry cannot be held responsible." The number of staff of the Ministry is constantly being reviewed, but I am afraid that no reduction can be made at present.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Do the Government intend to take steps to reduce the staff and the expenditure of the Ministry, if necessary, by inserting a Clause in the new Economy Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have already answered that I am afraid no reduction can be made at present, because I do not see which of the services that have been imposed upon the Ministry for the benefit of agriculture can be abolished.

Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a feeling is growing up among farmers that there will be no check on foot-and-mouth disease while he has the great body of officials to maintain that he is maintaining at the present time?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does my right hon. Friend think that the results obtained compensate for the enormous expenditure in these departments of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is a matter of opinion.

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the Estimates Committee, to which he refers in his answer, were of opinion that there has been an enormous increase in the numbers in this Department, and that the results have not been commensurate with the expenditure?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is not what the Estimates Committee report.

Sir F. HALL: I am afraid the Report is not quite as full as it might have been.

OFFICE OF WORKS (LONDON MAINTENANCE CONTRACT).

Sir F. HALL: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the administration of the London maintenance contract has caused dissatisfaction amongst the contractors considered capable of undertaking This contract; that a firm who carried out a previous contract have now refused to tender, on the grounds that they have received unfair and unbusinesslike treatment; that this firm holds a commendation from his Department of their conduct of the important works entrusted to them; and whether he will forthwith inquire into the facts of the case with a view to satisfying himself as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the complaints made by contractors employed since the War?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): As regards the first part of the question, the First Commissioner of Works is not aware that there is general dissatisfaction among contractors as to the administration of the London Maintenance Contract, and, in point of fact, the tenders recently received for the next contract indicate keen competition. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the firm in question has lodged a claim which will in due course be the subject of arbitration under the terms of the contract, when the firm will have full opportunity for stating their case.

Sir F. HALL: Does my hon. and gallant Friend think it advisable that, in the case
of a big Department such as the Office of Works, contractors who have received testimonials of the highest kind from the Department should decline to tender in consequence of the manner in which they are treated?

Captain HACKING: Nobody need tender unless they care to do so.

Sir F. HALL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend of the opinion that it is advisable, from the point of view of the Department, that some of these big contractors, in consequence of the attitude that has been adopted, decline to tender? Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that the best results are going to be obtained in those circumstances?

Captain HACKING: It does not necessarily follow that, if one were to give a testimonial to-day, one would be inclined to repeat it later.

Sir F. HALL: I will show my hon. and gallant Friend a testimonial from the Department.

NATIONAI. PHYSICAL LABORATORY.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the name of the firm to whom the order for light railway material for the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, has been given, and the name of the country from which the material is being supplied?

Captain HACKING: An order for a small quantity of light railway material was placed recently with Messrs. Richter and Pickis, of 101, Finsbury Pavement. The value of the material, which is of German origin, is £25. It is usual to inquire the country of origin of material supplied to the Office of Works, and, wherever possible, to give preference to British-made material, but in this particular case the usual practice was, I regret, not followed.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend definitely of the opinion that it is impossible to get such material from British manufacturers?

Captain HACKING: No; it is possible to get such material from British manufacturers.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Then may I ask why it was not done?

Captain HACKING: I have said that I regret that the usual custom was not followed, and am going to see that, if possible, there is no recurrence.

FOOD LIQUIDATION DEPARTMENT.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Liquidation Department has now been wound up; and, if not, the nature of, and necessity for, the work still being carried on?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The Food Liquidation Department will be wound up on 31st March, 1926, but a small staff, attached to the Finance Department of the Board, will continue to be engaged upon the liquidation of accounts and the settlement of claims, involving large sums of money, relating to the late Ministry of Food, the Royal Commissions on Wheat and Sugar Supplies, and the Flour Mills Control.

Mr. HARRIS: May I ask how many years the hon. Gentleman estimates it takes to wind up a Government Department?

Sir B. CHADWICK: That depends on the work that requires winding up.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Can my hon. Friend say what is the number of the staff?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The number of the staff at the present time is, I think, 15, and it will be reduced by the end of March to 10.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: How many are being transferred to the Food Council?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

TEMPORARY TYPISTS AND SHORTHAND TYPISTS.

Mr. GROVES: 93
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he will be prepared to consider some special form of establishment for temporary typists and shorthand typists with removal of age limit or, failing this, what proposals he intends to make with regard to some sort of security of tenure;
(2) whether he will be prepared to consider some special form of establishment for those temporary typists and shorthand typists who desire to enter the permanent grades of typists and shorthand typists, respectively; and whether he is aware that such women at the present moment have to compete on equal terms with young girls straight from outside training schools;
(3) whether he is aware that temporary typists are expected, if they wish to become permanent civil servants, to pass an exacting examination in shorthand, although they are never allowed or expected to use shorthand in their daily duty as typists; whether he is aware that they have to compete in the same examinations with young girls who have spent the whole of their time studying at training schools; and whether he will be prepared to examine this question to see if it, is possible to dispense with this examination?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Examinations have been held annually for some years at which temporary typists and shorthand typists have had opportunities of competing for established posts. One examination for each grade was held without an upper age limit, the remainder with an upper age limit of 22 and 40 respectively. As at present advised, I am unable to agree that any further facilities to enable these women to compete for established posts are called for, beyond the continuance of the normal competitions with the above age limits. It is not the fact that temporary women typists and shorthand typists entering for the established shorthand typist grade have to compete with girls fresh from outside training schools. It is only the examination for typists which is open to candidates who are not already serving in a Government department, and as at recent examinations all those candidates who reached the qualifying standard have been successful, the temporary staff have been in no way prejudiced by having to compete against girls straight from outside training schools. With regard to the first part of question No. 95, I should point out that shorthand is an alternative subject at the examination for appointment as typist.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider holding these examinations every six months instead of annually, in order to give the girls a better chance?

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider holding them every week?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HYDE PARK CORNER (GYRATORY TRAFFIC SYSTEM).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the adoption of the gyratory system of traffic at Hyde Park Corner necessitates moving any of the memorials now in front of St. George's Hospital?

Captain HACKING: The adoption of the new system of traffic involves no interference with these memorials.

Major COHEN: Would it be possible to make it necessary?

Captain WALLACE: 98.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, before arranging the gyratory system of traffic at Hyde Park Corner, he has considered the fact that this would considerably increase the volume of heavy traffic passing, the front of St. George's Hospital, and would be a serious matter both for the building and the patients; and whether he will consider the advisability of sending west-bound traffic between the two memorials instead of past the front of St. George's Hospital?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The position of St. George's Hospital in relation to the institution of a gyratory system of traffic at. Hyde Park Corner, was very carefully considered, but I am advised that it would not be practicable to send the west-bound traffic between the two memorials as suggested. There is already a considerable amount of traffic past the hospital, and I cannot agree that the additional traffic is likely seriously to affect the buildings. So far as the patients are concerned, I am hopeful that experience will prove that my hon. and gallant Friend's fears are unfounded. The proposal can, of course, be reviewed in the light of practical experience.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (TRAINMEN'S HOURS).

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: 96.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the abnormally large number of hours of continuous duty of goods guards and other trainmen employed on the Great Northern section of the London and North Eastern Railway during the past few months: and whether he will cause a thorough inquiry to be made into the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I believe it is the case that long hours have been worked by the goods guards on this section of the railway at certain periods during recent months, but I understand that matters have now improved in this respect. If any specific complaints of excessive hours are made to me I will see that they are fully investigated.

THRESHING SETS (ATTENDANTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 99.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to allow threshing sets to travel with two men only instead of three?

Colonel ASHLEY: The whole question of the number of attendants to accompany a locomotive hauling a train of vehicles is under consideration in connection with the Road Vehicles Bill and the regulations to be made thereunder.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this Bill is to be introduced and whether it has been drafted?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PETROL SUPPLIES (REFINING).

Mr. REMER: 60.
asked the Postmaster- General how many gallons of petrol were purchased by the Post Office in 1925; how many gallons were refined by British labour: and how many gallons by foreign labour?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The answer to the first part of the question is about l½ million gallons per annum: and to the second part, that, since companies concerned have refineries both here
and abroad, no estimate can be made as to the point referred to. Purchases are made by the Post Office in consultation with the Petrol Sub-Committee of the Contracts Co-ordinating Committee.

Mr. REMER: Is it not very important that the Department should use as far as possible petrol that has been refined by British labour?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir. I quite agree.

BROADCASTING (PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any information to the effect that the speeches of any other world Parliaments are broadcasted for the benefit of the public; and whether, in that ease, he will state the result of the experiment?

Viscount WOLMER: I have no official information on the subject, but I have seen reports that the proceedings of the Japanese Diet were broadcast in De ember last, and that the proceedings of certain State Legislatures in the United States of America have frequently been broadcast. I have no information as to the result.

Colonel APPLIN: Will the Noble Lord assure the. House that the Mother of Parliaments shall be the father of broadcasting from a Parliamentary point of view?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. PENNY: Is it not the fact that the medical profession rather think there will he an outbreak of sleeping sickness if that suggestion is adopted?

BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that under the recommendations of the Broadcasting. Committee no charge would fall upon public funds in respect of the proposed repayment of their subscribed capital to the shareholders in the British Broadcasting Company, provision for its debts and liabilities, costs of liquidation, or any other sources of expenses requiring to be met in carrying out the proposals to set up a Broadcasting Commission to supersede the company?

Viscount WOLMER: The Broadcasting Committee's Report is under considera-
tion, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement concerning the Committee's recommendations.

ZINC CONCENTRATES (WAR CONTRACTS).

Sir F. SANDERSON: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when any contracts for zinc concentrates purchased for War purposes, still running, will finally end; the losses sustained and differences paid under these contracts since the termination of the War; and the further losses estimated to he sustained?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The Government contract for the purchase of Australian zinc concentrates expires on 30th June, 1930. At 31st March, 1925, the date of the last completed accounts, the net loss was £1,700,000. The price paid under the contract varies according to the market price of spelter, and for this reason it is not possible to say what will he the total loss on the contract.

FRANCO-TURKISH TREATY.

Mr. PONSONBY: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary-General of the League of Nations has reported the registration, under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League, of the treaty recently concluded between France and Turkey; and whether this treaty will he published?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, treaties are only registered with the League of Nations after ratification. The answer, therefore, to the first part of his question is in the negative. As regards the last part of his question, I would refer him to the reply which was given to tit, Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) on 1st March.

Mr. PONSONBY: Am I to take it, from the hon. Gentleman's answer, that the treaty has not yet been ratified?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I think not.

BULGARLA (LOAN).

Mr. BUXTON: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to support a loan, guaranteed by the League of Nations, to Bulgaria to be used exclusively for solving the refugee problem?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the League of Nations is not in a position to guarantee loans, which can only be raised by borrowing countries on their own credit in the market. In general, His Majesty's Government do not interfere in the placing of market loans, and I do not think it desirable to express any opinion in this individual nose.

NAVAL OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 76.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that married naval officers are not as a rule on the lodging list, and married officers of the Army and Air Force usually are on this list, and that the figures given in Vol. 192, columns 2627 to 2630, of the OFFICIAL REPORT show that married naval officers below the rank of captain are worse off than married officers of the same age in the other cervices, he will reconsider the question of marriage allowances to naval officers or will, at any rate, grant them some allowance to make their position more equal to that of officers in the other services?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I regret that I ant not able to add anything to the announcement made on this subject on behalf of His Majesty's Government last Session (OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August cols. 1344–5, and OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th November, col. 17).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the fact that this question discloses that the pay of naval officers is not so good as the pay of Army officers, cannot the hon. Gentleman grant the marriage allowance?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Was it not stated that the married naval
officers' pay was as good as the married Army officers' pay, and is that not quite incorrect?

Mr. DAVIDSON: My hon. and gallant Friend must not assume that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CIRCULAR 1371 AND MEMORANDUM 44.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44 have been withdrawn; and whether he will at once have printed and circulated the latest memorandum and statement of policy issued last week to local education a authorities?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have informed local authorities that Circular 1371 should now be regarded as withdrawn, and that the general directions contained in administrative Memorandum 44 will be superseded by communications which I am addressing individually to each authority after consideration of their revised Estimates. The document conveying this announcement (of which I am sending the right hon. Member a copy) has already been printed anti circulated to authorities, and copies are now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the policy contained in Memorandum 44 now dropped? Is a different spirit introduced?

Lord E. PERCY: It depends what the hon. Member understands by spirit and policy.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE TEACHERS (LECTURE).

Mr. SPENCER: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the teachers of Nottinghamshire were officially invited to attend a lecture on the teaching of English, at which nothing was said about the subject but a speech was delivered partly justifying and partly excusing the education policy of the Board of Education; and whether the expenses of this meeting were paid by the Board of Education?

Lord E. PERCY: My Department were not responsible either for snaking the arrangements for the lecture referred to or for meeting the expenses.

Mr. SPENCER: Was not the initiative taken by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Lord E. PERCY: No. So far as I know, my Department had nothing whatever to do with it.

SEAMEN'S SPECIAL FUND.

Mr. SNELL (for Mr. W. BAKER): 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether any alteration has been made in the regulations of the special fund for seamen, commonly called the Lascar Fund; and whether, seeing that the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act provides for pensions at 65 in January, 1928, he will state if it is proposed to alter the age limit for applications in the ease of the Lascar Fund.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood.): My right hon. Friend is informed that the governing body of the Seamen's Special Fund—formerly known as the Lascar Fund—have under consideration the question of varying their pensions scheme as from 2nd January, 1928, to take account of the changed conditions resulting from the operation of the Contributory Pensions Act.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (PILOTS DISCHARGED).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officer pilots and airmen pilots, respectively, are being discharged from the Air Service between now and the end of the present year; how many of these are leaving at the expiration of their engagements, and how many are leaving for other causes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): As all our estimates of personal requirements are based on the financial year, I should prefer, if the hon. and gallant Member agrees, to give figures for the financial rather than the calendar year. The number of officer pilots due to pass from the active list of the Royal Air Force in the financial year 1926 is 257, nearly all being short-service officers who will pass into the Reserve; and the number of airmen pilots due for transfer to the Reserve
is five. It is not possible to forecast the number who may cease to be employed for other reasons, but it will be small.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that there are no reductions being made, and that there is only the ordinary normal passing to Reserve?

Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me how many officers are being discharged.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it in another way? Are any pilots being "axed" out of the service? I do not mean those whose engagements have expired. Are any reductions being made apart from that?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir.

COLDSTREAM GUARDS BAND (VISIT TO CANADA).

Colonel DAY: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men, members of the band of His Majesty's Coldstream Guards, engaged to play at the Toronto. Exhibition and in other Canadian cities; the amount of fees represented by such engagements; and whether bandsmen are in receipt of Army pay and allowances while detached from their regiment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The band will consist of one officer and 40 other ranks. The financial arrangements are still under discussion, but it is not intended that Army Funds shall bear any expense for food, accommodation or transport of the band during the period of the tour. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, subject, in the case of unofficial engagements, to certain conditions as regards the rates arid duration of allowances.

Colonel DAY: What will the men receive for those services?

Captain KING: I have said the whole of the financial arrangements are under discussion.

ITALY AND YUGO-SLAVIA.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether the new treaty between Italy and Yugo-Slavia has been registered with the League of Nations, under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no treaty has been concluded between Italy and Yugo-Slavia since that signed at Rome on 27th January, 1924. This instrument has been registered with the League of Nations in accordance with Article 2 of the Additional Protocol to the treaty.

Mr. BUXTON: Has not a recent agreement been considered between Italy and Yugo-Slavia and is it not an agreement within the meaning of Article 18 of the Covenant.?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is no new Treaty so far as I am aware, but I understand that there have been negotiations between Italy and Yugo-Slavia in respect of a possible amplification of the existing Treaty.

ITALY (SENTENCE ON BRITISH SUBJECT).

Mr. HAYES: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the representations made by His Majesty's Government to the Italian Government, respecting the Englishman, William Ellison, who has been sentenced by a Florence tribunal to a period of imprisonment, for an offence against Italian law, have been finally considered; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As soon as the result of Mr. Ellison's appeal was known, His Majesty's Ambassador brought the matter to Signor Mussolini's attention, and I am glad to be able to say that Signor Mussolini at once, of his own initiative, submitted to the King of Italy a pardon for Mr. Ellison. The decree granting him a free pardon, but requiring him to leave Italy, was signed on the 11th instant.

COLOURED BRITISH SEAMEN.

Captain A. EVANS: 82
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he is aware that in Cardiff the registration certificate books
that have been issued in the past to coloured British seamen have borne the words Adenese or Arab seaman; for what reason these words have now become disused; and whether, as at present there is nothing to indicate on the registration card that the man is ether than an alien, he will introduce some change in the procedure in order to meet the wishes of coloured British subjects of India, Aden, Somaliland, Malaya, and Malta;
(2) if he is aware that in some instances passports of British coloured seamen have been presented to the aliens registration officials at Cardiff, and that they have not been accepted; that the seamen have been compelled to register as aliens; and, in view of this, will he say whether the production of a seaman's certificate and discharge book can be accepted as proof of nationality of the seaman, in view of the fact that in this book the date and place of his birth is always entered, and inasmuch as such a book only applies to those seamen sailing in British ships and is issued by the Board of Trade;
(3) if he is aware that British coloured seamen have to be registered under the Aliens Order, 1920, in consequence of their being unable to prove that they are British subjects; and will he say what proof of their British nationality is required, having regard to the fact that there is no registration of births in Aden, Somaliland, Malaya, or Malta, and that it is consequently difficult to get documentary evidence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the reply is necessarily rather long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am aware that in some cases coloured seamen who have been called upon to register have claimed to be British subjects. I do not think that a seaman holding a valid British passport has ever been so called upon, but I understand that where such a passport has been out of date or otherwise invalid the holder has been advised to register in the absence of satisfactory proof of his identity and nationality. On the production of such proof his registration would of course be cancelled, but I regret that a seaman's discharge book cannot be accepted for this purpose, since
the entries as to date and place of birth are based merely on the statements of the person to whom it was issued. The existence or otherwise of proof of a coloured seaman's birth in Somaliland or the Malay States is immaterial for the purpose of his registration, since it would not in any case entitle him to recognition as a British subject, but as a British protected person only. As regards persons claiming birth in Aden or British India, arrangements have been made in consultation with the India Office to assist them in obtaining the necessary proof; while in the case of Maltese I understand that seamen's certificates of nationality are issued by the Collector of Customs at Malta. I should perhaps add that Maltese are not regarded as persons of colour under the Order. The question of placing some distinctive mark on the registration certificates issued to coloured seamen under the Special Order applying to them has been duly considered, and it was decided that the word "seaman" should appear in red ink on the cover and on the inside. No other words seem generally appropriate, and I think this sufficiently distinguishes them from the certificates issued under the ordinary provisions of the Aliens Order.

ALIENS (INQUIRIES AS TO CHARACTER).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 85.
asked the Home Secretary what steps are taken to ascertain the personal character of any alien seeking to enter this country; and whether he will consider the necessity of giving instructions that such inquiries shall be of an exhaustive nature?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In view of the very large number of aliens who seek admission, it is, of course, impracticable to investigate the personal history and past record of each individual: but every effort is made to exclude undesirable aliens, and I am satisfied that these efforts are, on the whole, successful.

Sir R. GOWER: 86.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the presence in this country of two aliens, named Factor and Muchnic, respectively; whether he is aware that these aliens are of an undesirable character; whether he will state what inquiries were made to ascertain their
character, reputation and history prior to their being allowed to enter this country; what the result of such inquiries was and what steps he proposes to take to prevent their remaining in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Unless Factor is an alien—as to which I have no evidence—no question of his exclusion from this country arises. Muchnic was extradited last July, and steps were taken to prevent his re-admission. So far as I am aware, he has not returned; but if my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary, he will perhaps be good enough to communicate it to me.

£

£


Northern Ireland contribution (provisional)
2,600,000
Grant-in-Aid of Northern Ireland revenues (Special Constabulary)
1,200,000




Estimated payment under the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill
680,000




Statutory gift of land purchase annuities
670,838




Statutory gift of buildings
148,000




Total
£2,698,838

SILK DUTIES (DRAWBACKS).

Mr. HARRIS: 90.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for drawbacks have been lodged in London for goods to be exported containing silk or artificial silk since the 1st January to the latest date available?

Mr. McNEILL: The necessary inquiries are being made. If the hon. Member will repeat his question on Thursday, I hope to have the information ready by then.

INCOME TAX COLLECTORS (REMUNERATION).

Colonel DAY: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Income Tax collectors responsible for the collection of taxes amounting in some cases to over £250,000 per year, are in receipt of £750 per year, out of which they have to meet their office expenses;

NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION).

Sir F. WISE: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount credited to the revenue account of Britain by Ulster for 1925–26 after the deduction of the Supplementary Estimates?

Mr. McNEILL: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The estimated receipts and payments for 1925–6 are as follows:

and will he cause a revision of such salaries to be made, with a view to such officers receiving more adequate remuneration?

Mr. McNEILL: The remuneration which is paid to collectors has only recently been revised and I cannot now reopen the matter. Remuneration depends on the work and responsibility involved, which is not necessarily measured by the amount of tax to he collected.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the collectors have to pay for expenses?

Mr. McNEILL: I must have notice of that question.

BRITISH MUSEUM (ILLUMINATION).

Captain GUNSTON: 92.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he will consider providing the same amount of illumination for the portion of the British Museum which is open on Sunday as is provided on weekdays?

Mr. McNEILL: No representations have been received from the trustees on this subject, and the present does not seem to be a suitable moment for introducing changes involving increased charges on public funds and increased Sunday labour in a system of many years' standing.

ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS (SALARIES).

Sir F. WISE: 97.
asked the Minister of Transport the salaries of the Electricity Commissioners; and the total cost of their Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Appendix to the Annual Reports of the Electricity Commissioners, which sets out the expenditure on salaries and wages and the total cost.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Government agency exists for the recruitment in India of coolies for work in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States; and, if so, how many coolies were thus recruited in each of the last three years; and from what districts in India do they chiefly come?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. By arrangement with the Indian authorities Emigration Commissioners for Malaya are stationed at Madras and Negapatam. As to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. As to the third part, the chief source of supply is the Madras Presidency.

Colonel APPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Federated Malay States Government do not induce these coolies away from the private labour in which they are engaged, for the purpose of Government
work, in conformity with what the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India has just said in regard to recruiting?

Mr. AMERY: I propose to deal with that point in answer to another question, and to give an assurance.

Colonel ENGLAND: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any complaints to the effect that native labour in the Straits Settlements is being unduly diverted from industrial and, agricultural pursuits for the construction of public works; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: I have received representations to the effect that the demand for labour at the naval base is depleting the supply on the rubber plantations. I am, however, assured by the Governor that the total requirements of the naval base are insufficient to have any marked effect on the general labour position in Malaya. The situation is being closely watched by the Straits Settlements Government in conjunction with the local representatives of the Admiralty.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not help out the difficulty to stop building the docks?

BRITISH PROTECTORATES (NATIVE CONDITIONS).

Mr. SNELL (for Mr. W. BAKER): 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he make comparisons between our regulations governing native conditions with the new regulations which have been issued to regulate the conditions of labour of the large number of native workers employed in French West Africa; and whether he will consider the adoption of any proposal which might prove to be an improvement upon the practice in our Protectorates?

Mr. AMERY: I have received repre-regard to the new French West African regulations referred to by the hon. Member. I shall always be prepared to consider, in consultation with the Colonial Governments, proposals for the improvement of labour conditions in the Colonies.

PERAK HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME.

Mr. FORREST: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to commence work on the Perak hydro-electric scheme; and from what source and under what conditions is it proposed to recruit the necessary labour for the purpose?

Mr. AMERY: The company which is to carry out this scheme has not yet been formed. I regret therefore that I am not at present in a position to answer this question.

FISHERY HARBOURS (IMPROVEMENTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. FENRY): 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how much money was spent during the year ending 31st December, 1925, on the construction or improvement of small harbours; and what available sum, if any, remains at the disposal of authorities desiring to make harbour improvements?

Mr. GUINNESS: During the year ended 31st December, 1925, there was spent on the construction or improvement of small fishery harbours in England under the supervision of the Ministry a sum of £9,051, which included contributions from local sources of approximately £1,360. The greater part of the balance consisted of grants or loans from the Development Fund. I am sending the hon. Member a statement giving the details of the expenditure. With regard to the second part of the question, no definite sum has been set aside, for harbour improvements.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (UNEMPLOY MENT RELIEF WORKS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the unemployment committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and confirmed by the Plymouth Town Council, expressing the opinion that it is of great importance that works for the relief of unemployment should continue to be provided by the local authorities of districts in which the extent of unemployment is exceptional; and whether he will state what his attitude towards this resolution is?

The PRIME MINISTER: The views of the Association of Municipal Corporations on this subject were placed before me by a deputation which I received on the 19th February. As I then explained to the deputation, the Government are not prepared to extend the conditions for receipt of grant as laid down in the Circular letter of the 15th December from the Unemployment Grants Committee, but I undertook that sympathetic consideration would be given to schemes prepared in response to the Circular issued by the Committee in March of last year.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the Report as the population of Plymouth has been largely increased by the policy of the Government in connection with Rosyth and Pembroke.

The PRIME MINISTER: All these matters will be considered as far as possible on their merits.

MILITARY FORCES (EUROPE).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate numbers of the military forces of France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Great Britain, respectively, differentiating between the existing standing armies in each case and the number of men in reserve who would be called to the colours in the event of a declaration of war?

Captain KING: As the answer is in tabular form, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the Financial Secretary say generally whether the standing army of Russia is larger than that of any other State?

Captain KING: If the hon. Member will look at the written reply, he will find full details.

Following id the answer:

The figures for the standing armies represent authorised strengths; the figures for the subsidiary forces must be regarded as approximate only and they comprise troops of widely varying
character as regards training and organisation.

Country.
Standing Army.
Subsidiary Forces.


France (including the Colonial Army.)
654,000*
5,100,000


Germany
100,000
Nil. (The Treaty of Versailles prohibits the maintenance of any reserve in Germany.)


Italy (including the Colonial Army).
250,000
3,065,000


Russia
634,000*
8,426,000


Great Britain
159,400†
309,000†


* Includes the Air Force which is part of the Army.


†Establishments in 1926 Estimates.

BUILDING ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MARCH (for Mr. W. THORNE): 87.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the accident on the budding in Blackfriars Road, S.E., on 8th March was due to the giving way of the concrete floor of the basement; if he is aware that the temporary wooden supports were withdrawn long before the concrete was firmly set; and whether the inspector expressed any opinion upon the matter?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir. According to the information before me, the wooden supports were not withdrawn, but collapsed as a result of the concrete floor on which they were resting. The floor was not a new one and the concrete was firmly set. In the Inspector's opinion, the floor gave way partly owing to inadequate distribution of the weight carried by the supports, and partly owing to the fact that a trench was being dug near to the bottom of the props, the effect of which was to withdraw lateral support from the floor.

Mr. MARCH (for Mr. W. THORNE): 88.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fatal accident of a man engaged in excavating work on the site for a new bank in Poultry, E.C.: if he is aware the man was
killed while working 35 feet below ground through a heavy piece of wood falling on his head; if he can give any reasons why men working below ground were not protected against any kind of material falling on them; and if he will take action in the matter?

Captain HACKING: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the question. The accident arose through the, wheel of a lorry, which was being backed along the adjoining roadway, catching and dislodging a loose piece of timber which was lying on the safety fender. Excavating operations ace not subject to any Regulations under the Factory Act, and I am advised that I have no power to take any action in this case. The Question of taking powers is being considered in connection with the Factories Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any modification of this week's business to announce?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to allow the extra half-day for the Second Reading of the Economy Bill, and take it at 8.15 on Wednesday. After the Economy Bill has been disposed of, we propose to take the following business: the Report stage of the Civil Service Excess Vote, the Third Readings of the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland) and Trade Facilities Bills, and the Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill. On Thursday we shall take the Civil Service Vote on Account in Committee and not on Report stage as announced last Thursday. The Debate, as I understand, will be as then arranged on the Committee stage of the Ministry of Labour Estimate.

Mr. MacDONALD: Will there be any objection to the Third Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill being taken before the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill be included in Wednesday evening?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. HARRIS: That does not seem to give much time.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is as serious as the hon. Member thinks.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 88.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Forrest, W.
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Astor, Viscountess
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Atkinson, C.
Gates, Percy
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Murchison, C. K.


Balniel, Lord
Gee, Captain R.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, A. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Berry, Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Boothby, R. J. G,
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pennefather, Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad)
Penny, Frederick George


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hanbury, C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Briggs, J. Harold
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remnant, Sir James


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar, & Wh'by)
Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanderson, A. Stewart


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Charterls, Brigadier-General J
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton. A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mid'ln & P'bl's)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson. Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Joynson-Hicks, lit. Hon. sir William
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Cope, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. O.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Scott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lumley, L. R.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macintyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elveden, Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Malone. Major P. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Margesson, Captain D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Watson, Ht. Hon. W. (Carilstle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Williams, A.M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wolmer, Viscount
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)



Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A,
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Pentstone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G, A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T, W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Demy)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Daltan, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. F.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.



Gosling, Harry
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Groves, T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvaia, Shapurji

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to a matter arising out of procedure on the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill. The facts are these. The Bill was read a Second time on 18th February, with a Clause in it that it should not extend to Scotland. It was considered in Standing Committee A for the first time on 11th March, when Members were aware of an Amendment handed in the previous day by the Solicitor-General for Scotland extending the Bill to Scotland. I desire lo ask your ruling whether the procedure adopted, whereby a change was proposed in the existing law of Scotland, without any previous notice being given to Scottish Members, is in accordance with the precedent and practice of this House when dealing with legislation affecting Scotland?

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: On that point of Order. Has is not been for years the constant practice that Bills referred to Standing Committee have either been
extended to Scotland or restricted in their application to Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot find anything irregular or in disaccord with the practice of the House in what took place. Notice was given by the placing of the Amendment the day before on the Notice Paper.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I point out that, although notice was given of the Amendment the day before the Committee met, hon. Members had their first notice of it in the Standing Committee A. Scottish Members, practically, had notice that the Bill did not extend to Scotland, and it was not until the Bill came before Standing Committee A that we knew it did.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: The Bills referring to Scotland are referred to the Scottish Committee, but the extension of this Bill to Scotland is a separate matter. I say nothing of the merits; very probably it was right that the Bill should be extended to Scotland. But is it riot opening an entirely new method of procedure if a Bill, which on the face of it does not apply to Scotland, is sent to a Committee up-
stairs on which no Scottish Member may he sitting, is to he held to apply to Scotland? If so, then the use of the Scottish Standing Committee is at an end.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot hold with that doctrine. The hon. and learned Member himself could have put this Amendment on the Paper, or, if the Bill did refer to Scotland, he might have moved that Scotland should be struck out.

Mr. MAXTON: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Scottish Members that while this Bill was being debated in the House on Second Reading Scottish Members deliberately cut themselves clear from taking any part in that Debate, on the assumption that there was no thought on the part of the Government or anyone to extend it to Scotland. I have learned for the first time of this Amendment to-day. I am not on Standing Committee A, and no steps were taken to get additional Scottish Members put on that Committee. The whole thing seems to me to be a deliberate flouting of the practice of this Rouse in reference to Scottish questions. I am sorry—perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, are very glad—that the majority of my colleagues have not returned from Scotland over the week-end.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I ask whether it is the practice in circumstances similar to this for additional Scottish Members to be put on a Committee when Scotland is brought within the purview of a Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter entirely for the Committee of Selection. I have no control over it. But the Bill has not yet passed all its stages, and hon. Members can raise the matter, if they desire, later on.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it still within our rights, now that the Committee is operating, to ask that special Scottish Members be added to this Committee?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: If the contention of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) were admitted, would it not mean that Bills would have to be introduced separately, one for Scotland and one for England?

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it too much to ask that either a Bill, on the face of it, apply to both countries, or that separate Bills should be introduced, and then one of them which was applicable to Scotland should be referred to the Scottish Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: That applies to the Committee of Selection, and not to me.

BILLS PRESENTED.

BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS BILL,

"to amend the law relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquors to bona fide travellers," presented by Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK supported by Mr. Clarry, Colonel Applin, Colonel Grant Morden, Lieut.-Colonel James, Captain Gee, and Mr. Remer; to he read a Second time upon Friday, 14th May, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

LEAD PAINT (PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING) BILL,

to make better provision for the protection against lead poisoning of persons employed in painting buildings," presented by Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

POLICE PENSIONS BILL,

"to increase the rateable deductions to be made from the pay of the police, and to authorise, in certain circumstances, the return of rateable deductions in the case of members of police forces retired or dismissed after the thirtieth day of June, nineteeen hundred and nineteen," presented by Sir WILLIAM JOYNSONHICKS to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to he printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1928–27.

Order for Committee read.

SIR L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS' STATEMENT.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
I think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members if I call the attention of the House to the increases and reductions in the Estimates which I am now presenting compared with those of the current year. The Estimates are in a different form from those with which hon. Members have been familiar for the last few years. The estimated expenditure is once more classified under the various Vote Heads. This alteration is the result of a decision to abandon, except in the case of certain productive activities, the unit or objective system of accounting. In the Memorandum which I have circulated, I have dealt with the reasons at some length, thinking that it would be more convenient to hon. Members to have the explanation of the form of the Estimates with the Estimates themselves. Therefore, I need not now deal with the matter, though, of course, if in the course of the Debate, questions are raised, I will endeavour to reply to them.
In Vote A I am asking for a total of 159,400 men. This is a net reduction of 1,200 men on the current year. Four hundred relate to Indian troops employed by the Air Ministry in Iraq, but for constitutional reasons borne on Vote A. The reductions for which the War Office is responsible, therefore, amount to 800. These are primarily due to the abolition of the Corps of Military Accountants and to a re-arrangement of duties and reduction in personnel of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, against which the cavalry regiment formerly in India, numbering 574, has now returned to this country and is borne on this Vote, and there is also a small increase of 96 in the staff and pupils at the training school at Chepstow. The reductions made do not therefore mean any loss in the fighting force of the Army.
The net cash which I am asking the House to vote is £42,500,000, a net reduction of £2,000,000 on the current year. It has not been an easy reduction to secure, and it would have been quite impossible to have done so had it not been for the co-operation of the members of the Army Council. Hon. Members must remember that reductions in Army Estimates have been continuous. In 1921, when I became Secretary of State for War for the first time, the expenditure was over £86,000,000. Then came the Geddes cut, and it was reduced to £50,000,000, since when it has been reduced by a few millions a year until this year the Estimate is £42,500,000, which is less than half the expenditure of just over five years ago. Indeed, the real reduction this year is nearer £2,500,000, because for the years since the War we have been living to some extent on war stocks, and we have now reached the stage when replacement has become necessary. Over £250,000 of additional expenditure is necessary on this account, and the passage of the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Insurance Act has added £137,000 to our expenditure for employers' contributions for soldiers.
The actual amounts shown as increases in the Estimates are chiefly shown on Votes 5 and 7. The £145,000 on Vote 5 is, however, not a real increase. It is the result of the transference from Vote 11 of the cost of rent and building occupied by British troops on the Rhine. The increase of £271,000 on Vote 7 is due chiefly to the depletion of War stocks of clothing and consequent replacement. The increase of £137,000 in employers' contributions towards Widows' and Did Age Pensions is in Vote 11, which would otherwise show a correspondingly greater reduction. Against these increases, there is a gross decrease of just under £2,500,000, and I propose to give the House the chief heads under which the savings have been effected.
On Vote 1, relating to the pay of the Army, there is a saving of £574,000. The new rates of pay for new entrants into the Army will account for about £332,000 of this saving, while the disbandment of the Corps of Military Accountatns will make a total saving, only part of which, however, is on this Vote, of £200,000, and the reduction in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, which is possible chiefly owing to
the completion of post-War terminal work, will result in a saving of about £50,000 on this Vote.
On Vote 2, which relates to the Territorial Army and the Reserve Forces, there is a saving of £204,000, to which the Territorial Army contributes £180,000. Hon. Members will notice on page 52 of the Estimates that there is a lump sum cut of £160,000 under the heading "Overall Reductions on the Territorial Army Vote." No one regrets more than I do that I could not make up the necessary total of the reduction without asking the Territorial Army to bear its share of the burden, and I wish to take this opportunity of acknowledging my indebtedness to the Territorial Associations and to their Central Council for the way in which they have met me. When I told them what was necessary, they put their heads together, and they have given me advice as to the way in which the reduction could be made with the least detriment to the efficiency of the Territorial Army, and I am glad to say that the saving will be made with practically no reduction, a reduction of under 1,300, in the numbers of the Territorial Army. It is true that 14 Royal Engineer parks will have to go. I am advised that they are not absolutely essential in peace time, and they represent a saving of £24,000. £00,000 will come off lands and buildings, and £30,000 off the clothing grant, and the other smaller items make up the total of £160,000.
Included in this Vote is a reduction of £8,000, on balance, for the reserves. This is due to a decrease of £23,000 on the Army Reserve owing to an anticipated fall in the numbers of the Reserve due to a large number of Reservists whose time expires in the coming year, and to an increase of £15,000 for the Supplementary Reserve, the numbers of which are gradually increasing. I am glad to say, however, that I have been able to avoid making a small economy which I feared I might have to effect. I mean the Cadet Grant of £15,000 which was approved for the current year, but which, in view of its possible withdrawal in future, was held up pending a decision as to whether we could afford it next year. I have the greatest admiration for the Cadet movement, and I believe it to be of real national importance. That in itself
would not have justified me taking it on to the Army Vote, but I think the charge is justified because the affiliated Cadet units are a fine source of recruits for the Territorial Army, and I am delighted that it has been found possible to allow this provision to stand.
The next considerable reduction takes place on Vote 8 relating to General Stores. Here we have a net decrease of £186,500. This Vote covers the purchase and repair of general stores and the wages of the civilian personnel in the Ordnance Establishments. About £92,000 is saved from the gradual completion of post-War work at the depots, with a consequent reduction in staffs. I am also anticipating an increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid of £121,500, arising from an accelerated sale of old and surplus stores. Against this saving I have to set an increased expenditure of £35,000 for general stores, due largely to the exhaustion of war stocks.
On Vote 9 there is a saving of £398,300; £328,000 of this saving is due to a curtailment of munition orders, more than half of which would have otherwise been placed with the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. I very much regret having to make this saving, but, if Army Estimates are to be reduced, it is impossible to justify the placing of orders involving heavy expenditure for, articles which the Army does not require immediately, and, if these orders are not placed, it means a heavy reduction in the employment given by the Arsenal, with the consequent gradual discharge of 900 men at the factories.
On Vote 10 there is a reduction of £496,000; £100,000 of this is a saving on the provision for reinstatement on the termination of tenancies of properties occupied by the War Department. The Estimates are also relieved this year of a provision that had to be made in the current year for the purchase of land at Deptford. This and other items account for a saving of nearly £400,000.
The expenditure on Works Services, construction and maintenanance, still remains heavy, amounting to over £2,500,000, but it must be remembered that during the five years of war little or no work of construction or of repair was carried out, and there is, therefore, a great deal of leeway to make up. The expenditure under this head includes new
barracks, improvements to old barracks required in the interests of health, and further provision of houses for the married personnel. Until the accommodation surrendered to the Irish Free State has been replaced, the annual expenditure is necessarily heavy. For example, Catterick will require £350,000. The barracks at Smallshot, for the Royal Corps of Signals, will take £150,000, while at Blackdown £40,000 will be spent on housing the Air Defence Brigade. About £30,000 is required to complete the alterations and additions to Wellington and Chelsea Barracks, and a large expenditure is necessary for providing married quarters for non-commissioned officers and men.
Turning to Vote 11, the apparent saving in the Miscellaneous Services of £575,000 is, I am sorry to say, illusory to the extent of £496,000, for Army of Occupation Services, for the equivalent provision for 1926 has only been transferred from this Vote, where in the current year it appears as a lump sum to the various Vote Heads appropriate to the particular service. There has, however, been a real saving on the Vote. There is also a saving of £93,000 on terminal charges, and there is an increase of Appropriations-in-Aid of £137,400. Against this, however, has to be charged the £137,000 to which I have already referred as being the additional employers' contributions for the men's insurance.
The final result of these increases and decreases is, as I have said, a net reduction of £2,000,000. In order to get at the net total of £42,500,000 I have assumed that we shall receive contributions towards the cost of troops stationed in various Colonies which have hitherto made no contribution or made one which is inadequate. I have also been assisted by the practical termination of war terminal charges and by the postponement of expenditure on warlike stores to which I have referred. I think it is fair to warn the House that although next year we shall have an increasing relief from the reduction in pay of new entrants to the Army, and by reason of the termination of military works loan annuities, there will necessarily be some increased expenditure due to the replacement of war stocks. Although I have to
ask for £42,500,000, the House should recognise that nothing like all this sum is spent on the current needs of the Army. We have a non-effective Vote which hon. Members will see if they turn to Votes 13, 14 and 15 for retired pay and pensions which costs nearly £8,000,000. That is a dead weight charge, just about double what it was before the War, which has to be met before we begin to expend on the effective services of the Army. There remains £34,500,000 which is the real expenditure upon the current needs of the Army. If the cost of living and the present rates of pay are taken into account it is a fact that the present expenditure adjusted to the present-day numbers on Vote A is lees than the expenditure before the War. I do not suggest that the Estimates can be justified upon this ground alone, but the fact forms some test that this expenditure is not on an unreasonable scale.
The real test, however—though one much harder to apply—is whether we are getting value for the money which we are expending. I certainly think progress is being made, and that the Army is becoming more and more an efficient military machine. But there is one aspect of our military requirements which is apt to be overlooked. From the nature of the case, the British Army may be required to fight under almost every conceivable condition, and over every conceivable terrain. The armament and equipment which are suited to one theatre of war may be quite unsuited to another. The result is that instead of providing for one general type of campaign, we have, unlike some other nations, to provide for several and to be prepared for all contingencies and conditions. This is inevitably expensive. Critics in this House, taking their stand upon the experiences of the late War in France and Flanders, are apt to ask why we do not discard the cavalry or some other arm for which they have no particular affection. Such critics overlook the fact that we have to visualise and provide for conditions which may be entirely dissimilar to those of a Continental war, and in which the discarded arm may be of the greatest value. But the fact that we have so many diverse possibilities to provide for must not be allowed to be a cause of unnecessary duplication, and we are examining again all our formations and their uses to
satisfy ourselves that we are not over-insuring in one or other direction.
The manœuvres last autumn were designed to give us greater knowledge on these subjects. I may say at once that those manœuvres proved an unqualified success in everything except the weather. In judging the value of manœuvres we must take into account not merely the few days of the manœuvres proper but also the time spent by divisions in scheduled area. The subordinate commanders probably obtained more advantage during the preliminary period than during the Army manœuvres themselves. The training facilities at our big military centres are not at the moment adequate to meet the demands of the troops. For example, the Eastern Command, in which is quartered the 4th Division, contains no Government land of sufficient extent to train even an infantry brigade. Aldershot itself is overcrowded, and no longer affords the facilities necessary for the extended training of big units. We are taking some steps to improve thin situation, but land is expensive and the process is slow.
The training previous to the Army manœuvres enables commanders to exercise their troops over extended areas and over unknown ground. As a result, difficulties of control and of co-operation between the various arms, and questions of supply, which are not brought out in operations in confined areas, become at once apparent, and both commanders and staffs gained much valuable experience for the future. During their normal training at peace centres, divisional commanders gain little, and higher commanders practically no experience of the command of troops in the field. It is impossible therefore to be certain whether the machine in war will run smoothly or otherwise. The training of the higher commanders and their staffs becomes, therefore, one of the first considerations in Army manœuvres. Neither commanders nor staffs have had any experience of this kind since the War, and though, as I have said, the results were generally satisfactory, I am advised that this form of training must be repeated from time to time if we are to attain the high standard we require.
One of the most important lessons of the Army manœuvres was derived from the use of mechanical vehicles. We do
not at this moment possess the types of transport necessary to make a conclusive experiment, but the result of our recent experiences have enabled us to make considerable strides in our ideas for the future. The question is not such a simple one as it appears. As I have said, the British Army has to operate in many diverse theatres of war, and what may be suitable to one theatre, may prove less so in another. In fact, the future of mechanicalisation is full of difficulties which must be gradually studied before definite decisions are reached. If we are to employ mechanical columns, it seems certain that the horse must be entirely eliminated from such columns. The necessary mobility cannot be achieved if horse transport accompanies mechanically moved troops. During the manœuvres the battalions which moved by mechanical transport carried their first line horse transport with them, and the plan was not a success. Until, however, a satisfactory type of machine can be evolved, which also has commercial possibilities, the cost of mechanicalising large forces will certainly prove prohibitive.
There is no vehicle in general commercial use at present which meets our requirements. Research and experiment are continuing with a view of evolving something which will be of general, as well as military use; something which commercial users will stock, and which will be available in large numbers in case of need. Mechanical columns proved both cumbersome and difficult to control, and also very vulnerable to aerial attack. The extent, therefore, to which a field army can be mechanicalised still remains in doubt. We have decided to approach the problem step by step. In the first instance we shall form a small mechanicalised force of all arms at one of our big training centres for experimental purposes, and we shall not attempt any large production of mechanical vehicles until we are certain that we have evolved the required types. We are, I am advised, already ahead of all other nations in mechanicalisation, and there is therefore no justification for uneconomic haste.
Another and most important consideration in all field operations is the close co-operation between the Army and the Royal Air Force. Efficient control by Army commanders of any Air Force units, which may from time to time be attached to their command, cannot be
expected without constant practice. Considerable strides in obtaining the necessary efficiency were made on manœuvres, and this advance could not otherwise have been made. We obtained the whole-hearted support of the Air Ministry in this matter. If I may, I would sum up my references to the manœuvres by saying that I am advised that the manœuvres of 1925 proved satisfactory both as regards command and as regards future development. We learned many lessons which we could not have learned otherwise. The discipline of the troops was admirable in the most trying circumstances and the attitude of the inhabitants to the troops was beyond all praise.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask what was the cost?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think it was about £67,000, but I will give my hon. Friend the exact figure in a moment. I am satisfied that unless we hold manœuvres at short intervals, the efficiency of the Army will suffer, and I believe the results more than pay for the cost. Turning to another subject, I think it is known that the question of promotion of officers in the Army generally has been under the consideration of the Army Council. In 1924 the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor in office set up a Committee under Lord Plumer to consider and advise on this difficult question, and the report of that Committee and the multifarious opinions expressed by its members have been receiving anxious consideration. The Army Council are unanimously of opinion that no change in the present system of normal promotion from second lieutenant to major is either necessary or desirable, and that nothing should be done which would in any way impair the greatest asset the British Army possesses, the regimental esprit de corps. They feel, however, that steps must be taken to give outstanding officers every chance of reaching the highest ranks in the Army. The Army Council have therefore decided that in the junior ranks, officers of marked ability shall receive accelerated promotion. Promotion above the rank of major will now be by rigid selection, increasing in severity as the higher ranks are reached. I do not intend to imply that a good regimental officer
will not be able to get command of his own regiment. Far from it. When a regimental commander has to be chosen, first consideration will naturally be given to the senior officers in that regiment, but consideration will also be given to officers of the same rank in other regiments who have been recommended for accelerated promotion, and whenever it is necessary in the interests of the Service to select an officer to be brought in to command from another regiment, then their claims will be taken into account.
Above the rank of lieutenant-colonel, selection will become still more drastic, and in making all promotions the merit, age and seniority of more junior officers will be carefully weighed before any promotion is given. This is done in order to ensure that the promotion of the officer under consideration is the best in the interests of the Service. It is hoped that, by this means, any officer of outstanding and proved merit will get his chance of reaching the highest ranks in the Service. I may sum up this reference to promotion by saying, first, that nothing will be done in any way to upset the regimental esprit de corps as it is to-day; secondly, that the normal system of promotion in the Army up to the rank of major will not be changed, but officers of conspicuous merit will be selected for and granted accelerated promotion; and, third, that all promotion above the rank of major will be by selection. I hope that every officer will feel that it is worth while making exceptional effort, for by that means the rewards of the profession will more certainly be gained by them.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Do those conditions refer to the Brigade of Guards also, or will the old practice of the Brigade of Guards being commanded by a Guards officer still be adhered to?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope there will be no necessity to bring anyone from outside into the Brigade of Guards. The references I am making are in cases where someone has to be brought in from outside a regiment to command it. I must say only a very few words on the question of recruiting, as I have already referred to it at some length in the Memorandum which I have circulated. Recruiting has been good throughout the recruiting year which ended on the 26th September last. There
was a moment when we had to restrict the numbers enlisted, awing to the possibility that otherwise the authorised establishment would be exceeded. In round numbers, we took in 32,000 recruits, a number about 1,500 in excess of the recruiting in the previous year. I drew attention last year to the number of candidates for enlistment who were rejected as unsuitable on physical and medical grounds. The number is still very high. Out of 89,277 candidates, no fewer than 52,200 were rejected on physical and medical grounds, or about 58 per cent., which is almost exactly the same proportion as last year. We do not anticipate that there will be any serious falling off in the number of recruits taken in the present recruiting year, although the reduction in pay which came into operation last October will no doubt have some effect. There has been a slight falling off in numbers since that date. That may be due, and no doubt is in part due, to the reduction in pay, but it is probably also due in part to the improvement in employment.
Even on the new rates of pay, the private soldier starts with 14s. a. week pocket money, and lodging, food, and clothing all found, and he receives an extra 6d. a clay after one year's service, subject to the attainment of educational and military proficiency. Out of his pay, a soldier can, if he chooses, make a substantial saving either for himself or for his family. Last year we started a system whereby soldiers serving at home could make automatic remittances of such part of their pay as they might wish through the Paymaster, so that they do not have to remember each week to purchase a postal order and send it to their parents. The automatic remittances have proved very popular. About 9,000 soldiers serving at home avail themselves of it, and in some districts as many as 70 per cent. of the recruits are remitting automatically to their parents. The scheme for training boys at Chepstow is proceeding satisfactorily. The full establishment of 990 will be reached within the next few months, and we shall know in the autumn how the boys turn out, as the first batch will then have completed their training at the school, and will be posted to their corps in the Regular Army. We shall draw in future about 300 tradesmen a year from this source.
On page 41 of the Estimates hon. Members may notice that it is said that a certain saving arises, due to shortage of officers. In case this may be misunderstood, let me say at once that there is nothing more than a seasonal shortage of some 50 or 60 officers in the Infantry. The only real shortage is in the Royal Corps of Signals, which will be made good as trained officers become available, and also there is a shortage in the Royal Army Medical Corps. These shortages have nothing to do with the recent reduction in the pay of officers now entering the Army. It will be remembered that the pay above the rank of captain has not been touched, but even on the reduced rates of pay, the pay of a junior officer compares, I think, very favourably with what his brother is earning in civil life. It must also be remembered that the young officer begins to earn at once, several years before the candidate for most of the civil professions, who not only earns no money, but has to meet a large expenditure to qualify himself for his profession.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: Surely they have to meet certain expenditure for training at Sandhurst.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Their parents have to meet certain expenditure for training at Sandhurst, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, but if you compare the payments which a parent will have to make for sending a boy to Sandhurst with the payments which the same parent will have to make for sending a brother of that boy to any one of the universities and training him for a profession, you will find that the payments made at Sandhurst are not a third of the payments the parent would be called upon to make to qualify his son for any one of the liberal professions. Moreover, there is a generous award of scholarships available for officers appointed to commissions in the Regular Army. Eleven of these scholarships are awarded each half year, three going to cadets from Woolwich, six to cadets from Sandhurst, and two to university candidates. I notice that one of the scholarships from Sandhurst has been awarded to a Y cadet, that is, a cadetship given to a man who has served in the ranks. This Y cadet joined the Durham Light Infantry as a private in 1921. He earned recommendation for a commission, and
he went to Sandhurst, where he gained the King's Medal and the Anson Memorial Sword for the highest aggregate at the Royal Military College. He passed out of Sandhurst No. 1, and, as I say, he was awarded a scholarship of £50 a year for five years, and has taken up his commission in the Royal Corps of Signals. The practice of keeping 45 cadetships at Sandhurst for men from the ranks is proving satisfactory and will be continued.
If I may, I will say a word about the Territorial Army. The strength on the 1st February last shows an increase of 192 officers and 4,851 other ranks over their strength on the 1st February last year. In the case of officers, the strength represents 81 per cent. of the peace establishment, and in the case of other ranks, nearly 79 per cent. The greatest care is being taken to enlist only men of the best type, and a really high standard is now maintained. The increase, therefore, is the more noteworthy and the more satisfactory. The new Air Defence units raised since 1924 are not so satisfactory. Only about 30 per cent. of the establishment has been reached. Of course, these are new units, and they have not got the prestige of the old regiments. Nevertheless, they form an important link in the defence system, and I hope that in the near future we shall see a marked improvement in their numbers. The 162nd East Midland Infantry Brigade, as well as some smaller units and many individual officers, took part in the Army manœuvres. I saw the brigade on the march and in action, and all that. I need say is that they fully maintained and even enhanced the reputation of the Territorial Army.
I cannot close now without publicly thanking General Lord Cavan for his four years' hard work as Chief of the Imperial General Staff. He completed a successful tenure of office last month. During his term of office the Army Estimates have literally been halved, and it is largely due to his broadmindedness that this has been made possible, and to his careful planning that it has been accomplished without a corresponding reduction in the efficiency of the Army.

Mr. WALSH: I am sure the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very comprehensive statement to which we have just listened, much of
which was very interesting. I think it will be well if attention be directed to the Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to issue to the House a little more than a week ago. He tells us that this is a new form in which the accounts are presented as compared with the form in which they have been presented during the last six years. Well, that is a fact, and it is a fact of a good deal of significance. I think it is a matter of genuine public importance, and I believe the Minister rightly estimated its significance by placing it in the forefront of his Memorandum. The latter possesses also an individual interest because of the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman himself two years ago, and because of the relation in which I stood at that time. The right hon. Gentleman, almost exactly two years ago, took up a diametrically opposite attitude from that which he has taken to-day. I think it will interest the House if I quote the exact words he used on that occasion. I was a new and an untried Minister. I had to throw myself upon the indulgence of the House at that time—in March, 1924—and I shall always remember with gratitude the way in which I was received on that occasion. I have nothing, indeed, of which to complain in the kindly reception the right hon. Gentleman himself gave me, but I think I have a right to complain that certain matters which he deemed essential, certain matters which he thought had great money-saving possibilities, certain matters that he deemed to have been decided by one of the strongest Committees ever called together, certain matters decided by a Committee which he called into existence, should have been urged upon me with all the force and persuasion at the right hon. Gentleman's command, and then, almost immediately he gets the opportunity of carrying out this particular process himself, he devours every word he has spoken, and throws to the wind all the recommendations of that most powerful Committee. That is on the individual side. I think the House will bear with me if I, first of all, read a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in his Memorandum. He says:
Since 1919 Army Estimates have been presented under seven Heads in the cost form recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, 1918. This year they revert to the old cash form, and are
shown under 15 separate Votes corresponding very closely to those of the other two Service Departments.
This change has been made as the result of an exhaustive consideration of the experience derived from six years of cost accounting in the Army.
That is what he says as the Secretary of State for War in 1926. This is what he said, not having been very long out of office, in March, 1924:
In regard to the Lawrence Committee Report, I confess I was not quite satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said. He seemed to be a little timid about it.
Why, Mr. Speaker, I was. I am timid by nature, a diffident and retiring man. But there was no modesty about him; nothing of my reticence—not a, bit of it. He had been Secretary of State for War from 1921 until well into 1923. He knew all about it. He said:
That was a Committee which was set up by me.
So it was.
I will tell the House why I set it up, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pursue this work. When I was at the War Office, the accounting and finance services, namely, the Finance Department, the Army Pay Corps, and the Corps of Military Accountants were costing—I speak from memory—£1,900,000 a year. That was an enormous sum, and I felt certain that if it was looked into a large reduction could be made. I succeeded in making a reduction "—
There is no false modesty about that—
of £100,000 a year by amalgamating the work of the Record Office with the Pay Office. I got that Committee set up, and the result of that Committee is now the subject of a White Paper, The present expenditure compared to the £1,900,000, as far as I can make out, is estimated to be £828,000, so already there is a saving of about £1,100,000 in the finance services, using that term in the broad sense, of the War Office. That is the cost of four battalions. This Report suggests that certain further steps should be taken, and it says that £240,000 could be saved if these steps are taken. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is the cost of an infantry battalion, and it is up to him to see that that saving is made in order that there shall not be any pressure to cut off any infantry battalion. The right hon. Gentleman says that that will take time. It has taken time to get this Report, and it has taken time to get these reductions, and he will find that it will require a good deal of energy on his part to get this carried through, but he ought to get it carried through. This Report was the Report of one of the strongest Committees ever set up. It was a combination of military, military administrative, financial and accounting experts.
In reply to that, I will not say onslaught, but that very powerful plea, I replied that I had not been there very long, but I had submitted the matter to the Army Council, that I had quite recognised that the matter was one that was arousing a good deal of very proper attention, that the Army Council had got together, and on the very first occasion they agreed to its application. I went on to say:
The one point on which I do feel a little doubt is, as to whether the result of the Committee's finding could be applied to the command of a unit in the same way as it can be applied, and successfully applied, to stated establishments. That is a point I will go into. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why I have not been quite so direct in my references as I would otherwise have been.
Speaking with due humility I thought, but the right hon. Gentleman followed me up by saying:
I did not wish to suggest for a moment that there was any delay on the part of the right hon. 'Gentleman … What I want him to do in the future, whenever he can—I do not want it rushed; it must he very carefully considered. It is no use his trying to do it as Secretary of State and finding that his Department or his Military Office are lagging behind; they must all go along together on the same front …. because I believe there is quite a considerable amount of money in it. At present the system is a dual one.
And so on. This is the statement of a right hon. Gentleman who was no tyro, who was no novice, who knew—I say this without any reservation—exactly what it was he was talking about, who knew exactly the composition of the Committee he had set up, and the conclusions they had reached, who had previous knowledge of the saving that could be effected, and urged me to go on with this Committee. Yet in the very first complete year in which he has had full authority, he throws over every suggestion he made to me, and all the work of that Committee, which he quite rightly described as one of the strongest that had ever been established.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the right hon. Gentleman has honoured me by quoting me so fully, would he mind quoting about ten more lines, because they show the real crux of what I was getting at?

Mr. WALSH: Certainly I will read it:
There is a system of Vote Heads and of so-called cost accounting. There are two
sets of people doing that, each being paid, and, when it is done, the two systems do not agree, and a third set of people is employed in reconciling the work of the two first. That is going on at this moment, and the sooner it is corrected the better, because it is a sheer waste of money. I find myself in the very happy position of being in agreement with all the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 13th March, 1924; cols. 2631–3, Vol. 170.]
As a matter of fact, the system that is now being reverted to will not bring about that unity of accounting, that unity of system the right hon. Gentleman recognised here, and he knows it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It will.

Mr. WALSH: It will do nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, under the system of accounting to which we are now supposed to revert, the measure of Parliamentary control will be very seriously weakened. In one matter, I think, everybody, whatever may be his views, wherever he sits in this House, must agree, and I agree quite unreservedly, that during the last six years the War Office has been an example, really, to the other Service Departments, and the expenditure has been very largely reduced because of the system that was established from 1922 down to 1925. Anyone looking at the Report issued last year of the Army expenditure, and the various heads in which income and expenditure are ranged, need not be a special business man, and need not have any special knowledge of accounting, to see that under that method of costing and accounting, there is a far greater chance of effective control than there can be under the old system, which dates back to the time of Charles II.
5.0 P.M.
Another point to which I would like to ask the attention of the House is as to whether, after all, in putting an end to the Corps of Military Accountants, we have acted upon those lines of equity which, I am quite sure, the right hon. Gentleman and the House will desire. There is an appreciable number of men who have had their engagements ended in a very drastic manner. As I understand it, the amount of compensation that is being granted in those cases is very small
indeed. I am not going to lay any allegation against the Department for a breach of faith. I am not going to say that legally these obligations could not be ended in the manner in which they have been determined. I do, however, ask the eight hon. Gentleman to consider whether in the case of these men, many of whom have given a great many years of service, some of them since 1914, they are being treated on those—I will not say generous, but I do say equitable—lines that one would desire should obtain in civil life if similar relations existed. Many of these men were certainly given to understand that their engagements might run for 21 years, and that they were upon pensionable conditions. Many of them, I am given to understand, are now in a position of having received a very small sum indeed upon the termination of their engagement, and I am quite sure, although, as I say, I refrain, and refrain scrupulously, from charging the Department or the Government with any definite breach of any legal obligation, that these men have the feeling that they have been treated in a narrow manner and that the conditions they were led to believe would operate in their case have not been by any means carried out.
I really would ask the Department to take this matter once again into consideration. For myself, I have gone into the terms of the contract of service which were entered into with them, and as my right hon. Friend knows, and knows perfectly well, I will not make an allegation of a breach of faith against the Department; but I am quite sure that in the minds of these men there does exist the idea that they have been treated in a narrow and rigid manner in view of the service they have given and the reasonable expectation to which they supposed they were able to look forward. These expectations are not being at all adequately met. I would ask my right hon. Friend really to give this matter further consideration. It. can not affect the Vote for the year 1926–27 to any appreciable extent, but it is in the highest interests of the State itself that any idea of unfair treatment, of narrow, or rigid, or unfair treatment, should be removed, and particularly in the case of men who have given long years of service such as has been given by many of these men.
In the interesting Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House he speaks of Vocational Training. He says, on Page 6 of the Memorandum:
Greater interest has been displayed by serving soldiers in land settlement in the Overseas Dominions, especially in regard to group settlement. The demand for vacancies in agricultural training classes at the Army Vocational Training Centre at Catterick had increased, and the number which can be trained in this and other branches of vacational training is only limited by financial consideration.
The matter is dismissed by the right hon. Gentleman in those few sentences. Here, again, however, I would ask the House to compare the attitude in the present lime with the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman in 1924. Then the right hon. Gentleman said:
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman said that the vocational training for men about to leave the Army was being developed, and I hope he will continue to develop it. He said it was started in April. 1923. I think he has got his date wrong, for I was conscious of it being in force when I was at the War Office. It is important that we should not go on turning men out of the Army on to the labour market as unskilled men. We ought while they are in the Service to furnish them with a training. I have not the slightest doubt that that is the least we can do for the men we asked to join the Army. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange with the trade unions that the training these men receive while in the Army shall count.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; cols. 2630 and 2631, Vol. 170.]
I have listened to certain Debates in this House. I have listened to answers given by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I have noticed the very slight references to vocational training. I would really ask whether it is being limited merely by financial considerations? I say that that is not, and cannot be correct! Some of my hon. Friends and myself upon the Army Council paid a visit to Catterick Camp. We went there to see for ourselves, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what was going on. We saw the work. We saw the agricultural training. We saw the craft work, the shoemaking, the carpentry, and the bricklaying. We saw a great deal of the men's useful and, indeed, necessary work, and we saw what very fine possibilities there were in that training camp at Catterick. Some of us went into the accounts, having knowledge of figures. I say unhesitatingly that all the cost of the voca-
tional training at Catterick is met, and more than met, by the income resulting from the labours of the men. I am extremely glad that that is so, that the cost is more than met by the income resulting from the labours of these men. I am very much afraid, however, that it is not a matter of financial consideration—that no financial considerations are involved! It is a question rather of the spirit that is being brought to bear by the governing authorities upon this very serious matter of the training of the men in the last few months before they are turned out upon the local labour market. The question is one of great importance. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend should have dismissed it with such a curt reference as we see in this paragraph.
The necessity of the British Army being armed against all contingencies was also referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. "We have," he says, "an immense area over which to operate and are different from every other nation under the sun." But it is necessary for us to keep a force of cavalry because later conditions may arise in which horses may be required? It may be the case. Nobody can guard against all human contingencies, but I should have thought, and I do think, that the day of the horse is past, or at least is rapidly passing even if we should visualise another war. I am as sure as I am of my own existence that there would he no useful function that horses could serve in that war that could not be performed 10 times more effectively by mechanical means. These ought to he developed to the utmost as against the existence and the use of the horse. I cannot imagine that the horse can be viewed other than an anachronism. It is now a misplacement in military history. The Department ought to be devoting more of its efforts towards the mechanicalisation of the Army rather than preserving that which is rapidly passing into a stage fit only for a zoological museum.
I note that there are nine brigades of cavalry as against one mechanical field brigade. I cannot imagine that there is any possible justification for such a contingency—to such an extent! If there is to be any appreciable reduction, the reduction ought to be taken on the lines I have indicated. I am quite sure that the Army Council itself, before very long, will per-
ceive that these remarks are not in any sense far-fetched, but simply in accord with the ordinary development of military operations, having regard to the technical and scientific side which operations must take in the future. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the reduction of the personnel in the Royal Ordnance Department. I am sorry to hear of it. I suppose there is a reduction going on now and towards the end of the financial year. I understand that 900 men are being dismissed.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Nine hundred men before the end of the year!

WALSH: I am sorry to, hear it. I cannot conceive the necessity for it. There are no conditions in which Woolwich Arsenal cannot compete with the most skilled private employer. The evidence upon that matter is overwhelming, either in cost, material efficiency, work completed, or the general conditions under which Woolwich Arsenal operates. The costs of all material necessary for construction compare, and compare favourably, with the best private employers in the country. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to hand over work to private concerns to such an extent as involves the dismissal of 900 men in the ensuing year in addition to the number of men that are already under notice of discharge. I do not want to say much more.
But let me say this: that the new system of accounting and costing that has to take place in the future is really most regrettable; it is a reactionary method. I am convinced that the control of this House, already imperfect and delusive, will be rendered still less than what it is at the present time. There was a real hope of this House, and the Department itself—that is, the War Office—getting greater and greater control of the accounts from day to day. Under this particular system I am quite sure the control would be less and less as the days go on, and if Departmental control is difficult to operate it will be still more difficult in the case of this House which, after all, is supposed to be the final arbiter of our expenditure. For these various reasons I shall, on behalf of my party, oppose the. Motion that you, Mr. Speaker, do leave the Chair.

ROBERT HUTCHISON: I would like first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very clear and concise statement he delivered to the House. I think it was an admirable statement, and gave us all the information we required. I am glad he has been able to reduce the Estimates by over £2,000,000 without exciting undue agitation against those reductions, and without interfering with the fighting strength of our Army. Although our expenditure on all the Services two years ago was very much less than it is to-day, the War Office is to be congratulated upon the fact that they, as distinct from the other Services, have been able to show a continuous reduction during the last six years. The Army has important duties throughout our large Empire and our mandated territory, and the kind of Army we need depends largely on the policy laid down by the Government; and if we undertake the occupation of Iraq and Palestine, and if we get situations such as are indicated by what is going on at Geneva, undoubtedly we shall have to provide for the future an army possibly even greater than the existing one. It depends, not so much on the Secretary of State and the Army Council as on the Government and the Prime Minister as to whether or not we can have future reductions.
I, for one, am sorry the Secretary of State has thought it necessary to reduce the amount of money devoted to the Territorial Army. Ever since the end of the War we have missed a great opportunity in not knitting together much more closely the old Army and the civil population. During the War they came together and were knit one with another. Now, it seems to me, they are inclined to drift apart again, and I think that tendency is a mistake. In 1919 the Hamilton Gordon Committee recommended a different type of Army, and two years ago, I think, when referring to that Committee, I pointed out that they had shown one thing clearly above all others—the desirability of bringing the old Army into closer touch with the Territorial Army. Although the Committee which looks after the Territorial Army have agreed to this reduction of money—and they could not help agreeing to it—this reduction must, in effect, lessen the amount of work which can be done for the Territorial Army, and lessen the amount of intercourse between the two branches of the
Service. I am glad to think that the training grant is not to be altered in that respect, but that is not sufficient. I think it is false economy to cut the small sum required for the Territorial Army, having regard to certain other possible cuts which I will suggest later.
The reduction of £400,000 in regard to munitions, which will affect Woolwich Arsenal, and which has been referred to by the late Secretary of State for War, is, I think, possibly a mistake. As the stocks of munitions are used up next year and the year after the Secretary of State for War will be forced to ask for additional money for munitions, and, therefore, although for the moment there may be a saving on the War Office Vote it certainly is not a national saving, because the men driven out of employment at Woolwich will undoubtedly be largely thrown on to the unemployment register. Possibly these skilled men may even yet be retained, if the Government think fit to take another course. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for War claim that the Army manœuvres of last year were an unqualified success. I have a recollection of reading in the "Morning Post" at the end of the manœuvres a very great soldier's remarks upon them, and I think his criticisms are well worth study. If have one remark to make, it is that I thoroughly agree with the Secretary of State that the Army manœuvres are very necessary for training in the higher leading, and for training in handling of supplies. They are even of greater value from that point of view than they are for the tactical training of troops, which can possibly be better done by divisional training. The mechanicalisation of the Army must move on lines which will get the wagons off the roads. Long columns must not be tied to the roads. From what I saw in the War and from the knowledge I have had of organisation, I am certain that an army which is tied to the roads becomes so much more vulnerable and can be hung up and dealt with accordingly by an opponent. I regret that economy has caused the Secretary of State to cut out the purchase of extra land on Salisbury Plain. Everybody knows how necessary it is to have a training ground for our Army, and I hope that he will be able to find enough money from some hid-den source to proceed with that purchase. However we may use the
Manœuvres Act in order to get territory for our annual manœuvres, it is only by having land actually under the War Office command that divisional and other training can take place, especially artillery training.
I notice an Amendment on the Paper in the name of an hon. and gallant Friend of mine in the Service dealing with the unification of control of the three Services. This, no doubt, will be debated later on a suitable occasion, but I would like to say now that we cannot expect a great reduction in the cost of any one of the Services unless we have this unification. One might put the War Office and the Air Force under the Admiralty, and run them at much cheaper cost, or one might put the Admiralty and the Air Force under the Army and secure a reduction of cost in that way. It is not a question of one Service being more efficient than the other, but a question of one having control of expenditure, and thereby cutting out duplication. The Supply Services, in particular, I think, would lend themselves to this treatment; but I will not elaborate those points on this occasion, as the subject will come before the House, I hope, at an early date. I hope something will be done by the Secretary of State with regard to the Staff College. Year by year we get an enormous number of candidates going up for examination, and very few vacancies. I do not know what the numbers are this year, but I am informed they are very large indeed. I am not sure whether there ought not to be some preliminary process for the elimination of candidates, for to have these large numbers going up for examination when there are so few vacancies means a waste of time for some of the officers. Perhaps the selection might be made more drastic before officers are allowed to go up, or perhaps the ages at which they are eligible to sit for the examination might be restricted.
I am very glad indeed to associate myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State when he congratulated Lord Cavan on his excellent service as Chief of the Imperial General Staff. It needed very hard work on his part to keep on with the continual reductions which the War Office forced upon him. May I also congratulate the Army and the
War Office on the new Chief of the Imperial General Staff, for I am sure that that hard-headed Scotsman will see we get value for our money.
There are one or two other questions I would like to ask the Secretary of State, though perhaps he may think it is not in the public interest to answer them. Is he quite satisfied that the mobilisation of the existing divisions is sufficiently good for the purpose for whit the Army exists? Can all the divisions be mobilised inside a time schedule? Are the specialists required for those divisions forthcoming? I was glad to see the formation of a special reserve to bring in civilian specialists for that purpose, and I would like to know how far that scheme has been successful, and how far we have advanced during the year with the betterment of our mobilisation arrangements. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, also, that our Army is properly balanced in other words, is the incoming of recruits and the discharge of soldiers at the end of their service more or less balanced. Can we look forward now to some years in which the incomings and the outgoings will be about equal, and, if not, what arrangements is it proposed to make in order to balance the Army?
I regret there has been no mention of depots. In the cavalry they have tried during the past few years to bring together the various units into one large depot, and it seems to me that the same saving and possible increase of efficiency could be arrived at by combining depots and concentrating in larger areas. I do not know whether this cuts across the old regimental system, but I know it was under consideration some years ago, and I think that if the right hon. Gentleman brought this matter to the attention of the staff that possibly the Adjutant-General might be able to make some saving by a unification of depots, so doing away with some of the staff maintained at an innumerable number of small depots. Are the requirements of India as regards the British Army now stabilised, or do the Indian Government propose further to cut down their call on the British army? I notice that my old regiment has come home from India, being one less now required in India. Are the other arms stable now, or are they affected or likely to be affected in the future? The
same applies to the Rhine army, and I think some statement ought to be made as to how the Rhine army could be absorbed in the Home Force. I take it that that army has now got its place in our mobilisation machine, and that it is possible under arrangements with Germany, as a result of the meeting at Geneva that we may have to face the home-coming of these units. Has any scheme been worked out for the placing of these various units in the larger units at home?
There are two other points I wish to raise. Has the Secretary of State for War ever considered the actual giving of distinguished or meritorious service awards. I know they are given to distinguished officers, but some of those officers who have received them have not needed them from a financial point of view. Could this not be so arranged that these awards should only be given to officers who really require the small amount of award that is given. I know several officers with very large incomes who have had these awards, and in future it might be worthy of consideration as to whether they should be given to those who are really hard up, because anyone who has served in the Army knows that these awards are a very valuable addition to the income of those who have to live on their pay only.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: That would not be giving awards for merit.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I would like them to be given in addition to service and merit. As regards the staff of the War Office, I know how very difficult it is to cut down in this direction, and it is extremely difficult to get the various Departments to give up even one clerk or officer. I do think, however, if you take into consideration the amount of work that was done prior to 1914, when we had the German menace in front of us, and the fact that we have a definite target now we are in a state of tranquillity and peace, we are in a position when a greater reduction in some of the Departments of the War Office might be undertaken. I know it is extremely difficult to do this, and modern requirements have moved along in the direction of the employment of more officers and staff, but it is not beyond possibility that we ought to have in addition to the reduction this year repeated reductions in this direc-
tion in succeeding years. I conclude by saying that I hope that in the Debates that are likely to come in regard to unification of the Services we shall see more economy. That is the only way we are going to get better value for the money spent, not only on the Army, but on the other Services.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I shall be very brief in speaking on these Estimates this afternoon. I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the very useful information he has given to the House, and I should also like to congratulate him upon the reduction of £2,000,000 in the expenditure which has been effected without affecting the strength of the Fighting Services. Under the conditions in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself, that must be considered to be highly satisfactory. I should like to ask what is being done in regard to fixed defences both at home and in regard to our defended bases overseas. I know that it is right to take the General Staff view on this matter, which no doubt is the correct one, but I have a feeling that in these days we ought to spend our money more on mobile defences than upon fixed defences. I would like to know how much money is being spent in the establishment of heavy armaments and guns of large calibre. What is being done in regard to aerial defence in Gibraltar? I raised this question last year, and I want to know if the Committee of Imperial Defence is going into this matter, and is it the intention of the Government to maintain aircraft in Gibraltar? I doubt very much if their maintenance there would be of any value in war time.
I wish now to turn for a moment to what I consider to be a very grave matter in relation to all defence questions, and that is the fact that we have a dead weight of debt of £7,000,000,000 sterling, and we have now stabilised our annual expenditure at something near £800,000,000 a year. I have not heard this point made very often, but it is incontrovertible that we do require expansion in our finance in war just as much as we require an increase in the power of expansion in our fighting forces; and you cannot get the necessary power of expansion in your fighting
forces if you have not got that power of expansion in finance. With this heavy dead-weight of expenditure, I can see very little possibility of expansion in finance. This is a very important question. I have studied most carefully the Air Ministry's Estimates, amounting to £16,600,000, and I confess that I could riot see how they could be reduced; on the contrary, I had a feeling that in some respects they were below the mark, and a, considerably greater amount ought to have been provided. Again, in the ease of the Navy Estimates, I fail to see how we could reduce even that large sum of £58,000,000. I think the Secretary of State for War has done very well to reduce, the Army expenditure from £44,500,000 to £42,500,000, but I am staggered when I realise that the total sum to be spent on our defences has reached the enormous sum of £117,000,000.
We cannot possibly continue to carry on an expenditure of that sort. We ought to get. better value for the £117,000,000 if we are going to continue to spend that amount. I think the leakage is to be found in the overlapping, and the waste which exists between the three Forces, and not in any particular Service itself. I am not going to discuss this afternoon the advantages or the disadvantages of establishing a Ministry of Defence. I believe we are going to have an opportunity later on of discussing that subject. But I would like to say that I am not one of those who advocate jumping straight into a Ministry of Defence, although I think we ought to go very much quicker than we are going. Just look for a moment at the volume of opinion in this House in favour of it. Almost everybody who has spoken up to date this year on this particular question has advocated something drastic being done in the way of the co-ordination of the three Services to achieve the necessary economies, quite apart from the question of efficiency. Lord Esher, who is a knowledgeable person, and who was the head of the Esher Committee, looks upon the establishment of some machinery for attaining this object as a logical outcome of the recommendations in his Report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer advocated the establishment of a Ministry of Defence only a year ago, and two years ago the Salisbury Committee recommended very strongly that there should be some means of co-ordina-
tion between the three Services, and yet very little has been done. There is still the Colwyn Report. I want to ask the War Minister, as many other people have asked him, what is in the Colwyn Report, and are we going to have that. Report published?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: All I can say is that if we are not going to have it then we can only jump to our own conclusions as to what is in it. Personally, I am very suspicious as to what is in it, and I rather think the Colwyn Committee has made some sort of adverse criticism against the Army and the Navy, and I think it has rather patted their younger brother on the back. It is a very pitiable thing when one sees a man getting on in years engaged in business going down hill, getting beyond his work, recognising that things are getting beyond his power, and suffering from a certain amount of ineptitude and decrepitude. I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman. As a rule, an individual in that state if he does not realise what has happened soon finds his business going from him, and there are only two things for him to do. One is to transfer some of his business to his younger brother who is showing more business aptitude for the work and showing greater scientific skill, and the other is to take his younger brother into partnership on equal terms. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty should hand over the aircraft carriers entirely to the Air Ministry, and that the right hon. Gentleman should offer—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather criticising the general relations between the Admiralty and the Air Force, but we are now considering only the Army Estimates.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I will not develop my argument further on those lines, but I should like to say that the right hon. Gentleman would be very well advised if he took his younger and abler brother into partnership in some form or another by providing a combined General Staff for studying these joint questions which have so long been neglected. It is all very well to say they have not been neglected, but I maintain that they have
and I will give the House an example. I asked the other day the War Minister about his Land Department, how much land he administered, and what the cost of it was, and I put a similar question to the other Departments. I find there are some 250,000 acres of land administered by the three Services, and the cost of administration comes to about £40,000 or £50,000, which I think is wholly excessive. A very distinguished general returned from overseas the other day, and he pointed out a thing I had not realised before, which was that when you undress a soldier, sailor, or an airmen in a hospital, they all look exactly alike. I do not want to pursue this subject any further now; I shall have something to say about it when it comes up for discussion later in the House.
There is another matter that I should like to mention to ray right hon. Friend. I am very glad that he has not interfered with the cavalry, or reduced the strength of the mounted arm. I should like to say why I am glad of this. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will, I think, remember speaking in the House only a short time ago on this subject, when he said he thought it, would be a good thing to abolish the cavalry altogether. I see that he agrees with that statement and holds to it, but I would ask him what he is going to substitute for cavalry for tactical reconnaisance? He talked of the Air, but, of course, he knows quite well that air reconnaisance can never take the place in tactical reconnaisance which is filled by cavalry patrols, which are necessary, not only in Palestine and other parts of the world like that, but also in Continental warfare as well. Cavalry is absolutely essential for this purpose, and cannot be replaced by anything else. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear less of the abolition of cavalry in the future.
I should like to point out one other thing to the right hon. Gentleman. He mentioned that cavalry in the great War were useless as cavalry, although very useful for dismounted work in the trenches, in the same way as infantry. I should like to point out—and this is a thing I can talk about, because I do know something of it—that, if we had had more cavalry in the concluding stages of the War, we should have had a very much
earlier peace and, I think, a better peace politically, and I regret very much that we bad not got them. In conclusion, I should like to point out one other thing to my right hon. Friend, and I do not do so in any menacing way at all. He referred to the necessity for economy as a whole. I would ask him whether he can bring pressure to bear on his colleagues so that next year we shall have a responsible Minister giving us in this House a plain, straightforward statement in regard to Imperial defence as a whole, showing the amount of money that is necessary for defence, and that that will receive the consideration of the House prior to the discussion on the three separate Estimates. I would also say that, unless that be done, I really do not feel conscientiously that I shall be able to go into the Division Lobby and vote for these large sums without some idea of their correlation in the Estimates. I think the economy that has been effected is quite excellent under the difficult conditions, but I should like to conclude by saying that next year I look for a bigger economy, carried out in circumstances which will be easier for my right hon. Friend, or whoever is occupying his position.

Mr. SNELL: I desire to ask the attention of the House to an aspect of this matter which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh—a matter of very vital importance to the borough I represent, and also a matter of national importance. It is, to put it shortly, whether the Government is under any sort of obligation towards the nation to allot to the factories which the nation has built and equipped a generous proportion of the orders for work that it has to bestow, or whether the Government is going very slowly to starve those factories into a state of inefficiency in order to divert its orders to private contractors whose prices are higher and who supply inferior material. The hon. and gallant Member for Fare-ham (Sir J. Davidson) referred to the tragedy of the person who, in advancing age, finds his business slipping from him. That is the condition in which a great many of the Government servants at Woolwich and other places find themselves at this hour. The Government is discharging from its service men between 60 and 65 years of age, who have been specially trained for its needs, and who
have not the remotest chance of getting work in outside firms at their time of life. We understand that some 900 men are to be discharged and the machinery belonging to the nation kept idle, while at the same time a great many orders are being diverted to private contractors to be fulfilled. These men working in the Government yards are specially trained. They have no chance of competing in the outside labour market, and the loss of work is not only a personal tragedy to them, but the nation also loses their skill and training, and the overhead charges on the national factories are increased to their disadvantage, putting them at a great disadvantage in regard to the future.
I am not sure that the House realises that the national factories are on a, competitive basis. They have to tender for all the work they get, and it is a rule, I understand, in contracting for business, that, where the quality of the goods is beyond question, the firm that tenders the lowest price gets the contract. It that rule were applied to the national factories, we should have very little reason to complain, but the very opposite is the case. In Woolwich Arsenal, at any rate, the goods supplied are beyond all question as regards quality, and the price, on a competitive basis, is below that which any contractor offers; and yet, although we contract in this way, supplying a better material at a lower price, we do not get the work, which is diverted to people who charge a higher price for inferior material. That imposes an additional burden upon a locality which the Government flatters when it is in trouble, and which it deliberately impoverishes directly the danger is past.
We have put this matter before the Government on many occasions, and I would like to say that we are always met by a perfectly disarming courtesy both from the Secretary of State for War, the Under-Secretary, and all the permanent officials; but we are never able to alter what one fears is a per verse policy of the Government in regard to the allocation of this work. The defence of the Government is that it is necessary to subsidise outside firms by giving them work irrespective of the question of price. If it be necessary, which we doubt, we suggest that that favour should be restricted to
decent proportions. It must he remembered that these firms cyan adapt their machinery to Government purposes at quite short notice. If a war were, unhappily, to come, their ordinary business would be immediately arrested, and they would be clamouring for the privilege of supplying Government needs. The experience of the nation at the outbreak of the Great War was that the firms who had not been receiving Government favours in the shape of contracts at high prices were as ready to serve the Government in its need as were those who had been subsidised. That means that a certain number of firms in the country are being deliberately subsidised to the disadvantage of other firms in regard to the supply of these materials. What does seem to be necessary is that there should be an ample staff of trained men retained in the Government service, so that, in ease of need, they could be detailed for instructional purposes for the immediate urgencies of the case. When the War broke out, the Arsenal was starved in that respect; it had not sufficient men available to do, this detailed instructional work. It had been pared to the bone, just as it is being pared to the bone now. Men had to work night and day, seven days in the. week, in order to prevent a national disaster, which nearly arose because the national factories had been subjected to the special needs of outside contractors.
I desire to urge another point of view, which is that these outside firms have access to the world's markets, while we have not. It may very rightly be urged, in a national institution like this, that those firms must live, and that they, too, have workmen who must earn their bread. We admit that, but, if it be true, the facts should at any rate he truly stated. Whereas the Government factories are of necessity restricted to such work as the Government needs in one department only of its requirements, the outside firms have the whole world for a market, whether in peace or in war. When trade is had, they can adapt their machinery to alternative work, and when it is good both employers and men share in the prosperity. But the Government factories do not share in these opportunities. They are worked to death in time of war, and it seems to me, at any rate, that they have the right, quite apart from the fact that they produce the right kind
of goods at the right price, to expect that the Government will not starve them in time of peace while it spoon-feeds the private contractor. To take an illustration, this House will shortly be asked to vote a sum of £10,000,000 for East African development—a proper request for the House to consider—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. SNELL: —a proper development in Africa and elsewhere; but let it be remembered that, while private contractors will get their share of this, not a penny of it will go to Government yards. I should like to say a word or two on the question of cost. I have always understood that it was a business principle that every efficient business should aim at getting the very best materials at the cheapest price. Cheapness and quality are the tests which hon. Members opposite apply in every business with which they are connected, and, if their balance-sheets show any suggestion of financial weakness, they search for the cause, and sacrifice everything to eliminate that cause. What they do in their own business, they are under a moral obligation to do as trustees for the business of the State. The Government is using the taxpayers' money, and this House is under an obligation to see that it gets the very best value for the money that is being spent. I would ask hon. Members opposite, or in any part of the House, whether they would keep their own men and machinery idle, and allow their trained and essential men to pass from them to do exactly the same kind of work for their competitors, while they are purchasing an inferior article at a higher price? It is a dangerous thing to mention figures, because nothing would please the Department more than to trip me up over a question of a farthing or a fraction, but I believe am right in saying there is not a thing that we produce at Woolwich Arsenal that is not produced at a far cheaper rate, and of higher efficiency than what the Government get from outside. On a recent occasion, I mentioned the ease of cartridges that were manufactured at a far cheaper rate in our own factories. I mentioned also the question of tanks.
There is a further question that I desire to ask to-day. If a sum of money is to be saved on ordnance work, is the whole of it to be borne by the national factories or are the private factories to share in
this loss, and, if so, to what extent? We are led to understand that the Government are compelled to do these things because of the great need for economy. Economy is so urgent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is compelled to resort to devices which I hope someone in the Debates this week will properly characterise. If he is keen about economy, I ask him to look into this matter. If he wants to save some millions and do the nation a good turn, here is an opportunity. When we approach Ministers for money for social purposes, we are always told nothing would be dearer to their hearts than to be able to do these things if it were not for the stony-hearted Treasury, whom they cannot move, and it seems that this omnipotent tyrant is over the Government Departments. If that he so, here is an opportunity for the Treasury to make a great economy and at the same time to secure greater efficiency, and, if the Government are unable to review its decision on the matter I am speaking about, I suggest that they consider the appointment of a Select Committee which will go into these questions in detail and report to the House as to what is required.
I should like to say a word on the matter as it affects the borough I represent. One of our difficulties in Woolwich is that the Government monopolise the whole of the available industrial sites. It takes the whole of the river front, and there is no place where alternative businesses can be established. Then if there is no room for other businesses, if the town is organised for the supply of Government needs, the Government are under a kind of moral obligation to consider the welfare of this town before they turn work from it and give it to people outside. The history of the Ordnance factories, especially the history of Woolwich Arsenal, is one long tragic story of short-sighted folly. War after war has caught the Arsenal understaffed and unprepared for the emergency that has come upon it. Over and over again it has been compelled to improvise special work in order to get the nation out of a very great difficulty. Over and over again it has been promised. that never again shall its staff be reduced below the standard of required safety, but always, after the
promise has been given, it has been forgotten, and in order to pamper the menacing armament ring it has been reduced below the margin of safety. We shall never he told by the Government by how many months the Great War was prolonged and how many young lives were sacrificed because in the early months of the War we were not able to meet the emergency. We are, therefore, in the position of having to ask the Government to reconsider their policy upon this matter. We have no political influence, we have no patronage to bestow, but we have justice on our side, and in the name of justice we put our case before the nation.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: It is with considerable diffidence that I intervene in the Debate, but I am encouraged to do so by the fact that I am one of the very few Territorial Commanding Officers on the active list in this House. On the other hand, it is a very great deterrent that I am called upon to follow two such very distinguished senior officers as those who spoke earlier in the Debate. In the War days when, as a simple Territorial, I was commanding a battalion on the Western front my knees used to knock together at the very thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) might be flying overhead, and on one occasion, when we had been warned that a visit was imminent and we had carefully dressed our front line shelter in anticipation, a thrill went through the battalion headquarters on an aeroplane suddenly appearing through the clouds. Close inspection, however, showed two black Maltese crosses on the under side, and a sigh of relief went round. "It is all right. It is only a Hun." With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) who has just spoken, we on this side regret as much as they do the discharges which appear to be imminent from Woolwich Arsenal, but I do not agree that there is any greater hardship in discharging men from the Arsenal than from a private firm. I would remind those two hon. Gentlemen that a few years ago, when we were anxious to avoid discharges from the Arsenal, 100 locomotives were built and the Government had the very greatest difficulty in disposing
of those locomotives, which were subsequently sold at a very considerable loss. Further, either in that year or the following year, a very heavy Supplementary Estimate was needed to make good the losses that had been incurred at the Arsenal in their endeavours to compete with private firms.
From the point of view of the Territorial Force the principal feature that emerges from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I hope, will allow me to congratulate him upon it, is the fact that a reduction of very nearly £200,000 is to be made in the Territorial Vote. As a serving Territorial, I must admit that I regret that reduction, but I think I am voicing the views of Territorial commanding officers generally when I say we recognise the absolutely paramount necessity for economy. So many people always want to economise at someone else's expense. So many people say, "Oh, yes, by all means economise, but for God's sake not in my Department." An economy in a service in which one is particularly interested is bound to come rather hard, but we in the Territorial Army are not as selfish as some people. We recognise the need for economy, and we recognise that this £180,000 is essential. But £180,000 is a big proportion of the total Territorial Vote. It may easily make a big difference in finance. But we do not grudge it now that we are assured that it is not going to be taken out of our training Vote and handed over to the Civil Service to play lawn tennis with. With regard to one or two other economies that might be effected in the Territorial Force, I have thought for some time that there is a possibility of doing a little in that direction in the matter of the expenditure on the annual camp. The annual camp training takes up a very considerable sum of money. Everyone knows how difficult it is to find suitable camping and training areas. It is difficult enough to find a suitable camping area for a division, and when you have found it it is still more difficult to find a suitable area on which a division can expect to be trained. It has occurred to me that it might effect a saving in the long run if the War Office were to acquire permanently a few sites of that character and erect permanent camps. By that, I
mean merely putting in the expenditure and the work necessary for a camp site.
The old days when the battalion water cart was considered an adequate water supply for a unit have gone by, and in these days water must be laid on for the cookhouses, the washhouses and the camp generally, and it seems to me an economy would be effected by doing that once for all on some permanent camping ground instead of doing what only too frequently happens now, erecting some temporary building, putting down a temporary water supply, and three weeks later taking the whole thing up again. Some two or three years ago a water supply was laid on to a divisional camping area at a cost of something between £3,000 and £4,000. Three weeks later the whole thing was taken up again. Surely, it would be an economy in the long run to do that once for all on some permanent site. I know the fact that the Territorial training season is so short accentuates the difficulty of doing work of that kind, but is there any reason why the whole of the Territorial camping season should be confined to August? Several units I know of would be only too glad to go away earlier in the year, and I do not think it. would affect the attendance one iota if, instead of confining the camping season to the first fortnight or three weeks in August, it were extended over June, July and August. The days are long and the weather is, if anything, better. It would avoid the competition for the services of the Navy, Army and Air Force canteens and for the, various stores that one looks upon for additional comfort and convenience. It would avoid that congestion in the railway service which is so noticeable in August and which compels the railway companies to send Territorial units down to camp after midnight, which means that as far as work is concerned the next day does not exist, because you cannot expect the men to travel all night and train the following day.
I should like to direct attention to the question of machine guns and light automatic rifles, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it possible to tell the House what progress, if any, has been made with the experiment to evolve an automatic rifle to supersede the Lewis gun. The Lewis gun, effective though it undoubtedly is, is a kind of hybrid or mongrel. It is too heavy and cumbersome to be an ideal light auto-
matic gun, and at the same time its mounting is not sufficiently rigid or sufficiently stable to enable it to do the work which a machine gun is properly called upon to do. The machine gun is one of the most effective of the modern weapons of war. If one might judge it simply and solely as a man-killer, it is probably the most effective. A short time ago the Machine Gun Corps war memorial was very adversely criticised owing to the fact that on it there was an inscription, in Biblical language, paying tribute to the effectiveness of the machine gun.
I am rather inclined to regret the disappearance of the old Machine Gun Corps, because during its existence one felt that there was a unit whose duty it was definitely to take a special interest in this particular weapon. To-day the machine gun is rather in the position of being nobody's child, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say anybody's child, which means that, it is bound to suffer, if not from neglect, at any rate from the competition of other arms. The fact that the machine gun is such an extraordinarily effective weapon in modern warfare ought to make it a special charge on some particular branch of the Service, and it behoves the right hon. Gentleman and this House to see that, these guns are provided in sufficient quantities to enable them to be used to their best tactical advantage. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that the tactical use of the machine gun comes rather within the purview of the General Staff. That is undoubtedly so, but it, is for him to provide the guns and for this House to insist that the guns are provided in the necessary quantities.
None of the military text books that have hitherto been written have laid sufficient stress on the cheapness of the machine gun, upon the ease with which it can be replaced, and the elementary fact that it is much easier to replace a machine gun that it is to replace the machine gunner. The old shibboleth, that to lose one's guns is to lose one's honour, should have no place in modern military tactics. That fetish originated 200 years ago, when a, gun was almost irreplaceable. Even 100 years ago, in the Peninsula, a gun that was lost could not be replaced for many months, and, possibly, not even during the course of the campaign. To-day it is infinitely easier to replace the gun, particularly the machine gun,
than it is to replace the men who serve it. In. these circumstances, it is simply criminal to throw men's lives away like dirt to save a gun, particularly a machine gun, which can be replaced so easily. The cost price of a Vickers gun at the present time is, approximately, £50, and one firm in this country can produce that gun at the rate, if required, of 1,000 a, week. There are several other firms who could give a similar output if they were called upon to do so. The value of a machine gunner is variously estimated at from £3,000 to £5,000, and he cannot be replaced in less than six months, even leaving the humanitarian aspect of the case entirely out of consideration.
The same argument applies in a lesser degree to all kinds of transport, particularly mechanical transport. It is much cheaper to have a lorry hit by a shell or a bomb than it is to lose a man, even leaving the humanitarian aspect out of the question. The point I want to make is this, that if it comes to a question between losing men and losing a machine gun it ought to he the gun every time. A good many hon. Members may think that such a statement is the merest platitude and that no one in their senses would think of doing anything else. May I suggest that that is far from the cases? Officers who commanded battalions of the line and who had the misfortune to suffer heavy casualties, amounting in some cases practically to the annihilation of their battalion, had their losses filled up again without any question being asked. Had they, on the other hand, succeeded in saving their men and losing their Lewis guns, they would in all probability have been sent home. There are innumerable cases of men being decorated and rewarded for having saved their guns when they had lost their entire section.
I remember the case of a noncommissioned officer receiving the Military Medal at the hands of the Corps Commander, because he had saved a Lewis gun, although he had lost his entire section. Let us try to work out a balance-sheet of that transaction from the point of view of the taxpayer. In the section which he lost probably two men were killed and two were wounded. Two of the men killed were in all probability married, and of the two men wounded one was probably a 50
per cent. disability for the rest of his life. The result would be a pension of something in the neighbourhood of £300 for an indeterminate number of years at a capitalised value of about £5,000. All that, in order to save a miserable Lewis gun worth about £20, leaving entirely out of the question the suffering, the human misery and the grief.
Only quite recently, in connection with a tactical exercise, a discussion arose as to the relative position of a section of Vickers guns and two rifle sections, and the explanation given that the rifle sections were placed there to cover the withdrawal of the Vickers guns was received by the directing staff without comment Surely, in view of the relative values of the two sections and the relative ease with which the Vickers guns could be replaced, the Vickers guns ought to have been used to cover the withdrawal of the men. The trouble is that, hitherto, there never has been an adequate reserve of machine guns to enable them to be used in this way. If they are to be used to their best tactical advantage risks must be taken, and if risks are taken guns, undoubtedly, will be lost. It is our duty and the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that there is an ample reserve of guns to replace the guns lost, and if the money be not forthcoming economies must be effected in other directions.
A Vickers gun, well sighted, may easily do the work of an entire company, but you cannot eight a Vickers gun to its best advantage if you have to do it with one eye constantly on the possibility of withdrawing that gun. Vickers guns which are sighted with the sole object of a field of fire will undoubtedly be lost, but, as I have already explained, it is easier to replace them than it is to replace the men. Objection may possibly be taken to this, owing to the fact that Vickers guns lost in large quantities would provide valuable material for the enemy, but there is no real reason that a gun should ever pass into the hands of the enemy in a serviceable condition. The Vickers gun is a comparatively delicate weapon, and two or three blows with a light axe or, better still, the use of a Mills bomb or a stick of dynamite will render the gun unserviceable for good and all. There is no reason why any gun should ever pass into the hands of the enemy in any condition other than as scrap iron.
It is imperative that we must have the guns in the necessary quantities, and it rests with the right hon. Gentleman and this House to see to it that the guns are in sufficient quantities so that they can be used in the proper way, namely, to economise man power and to protect the whole of the valuable men serving the guns rather than be compelled to sacrifice the men and protect the guns.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat is one of exceptional interest. It is the first time that we have had the value of the machine and the value of the man placed in juxtaposition, and a plea made, which I hope will be listened to in the highest circles, that the higher value of the man shall be taken into account. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his £2,000,000 reduction, but may I ask him whether that reduction is really money saved or whether it is due to our exhausting stores and cutting down necessary replacement? I am a little nervous at this change in the system of accounting lest that change may be one of the methods used or available for concealing reductions of stores, which are not really a saving on the Army Votes, because they have to be made up at some future time. The point I want to raise was raised by an hon. Member opposite, who said that I was quite wrong in urging that the cavalry should be abolished. The abolition of the cavalry is really the only direction in which big savings can be made in the Army Vote. I want to ask the House to consider whether the time has not come when we should take an impartial and unprejudiced view of the cavalry question. No one knows better than hon. and gallant Members opposite that during the War the cavalry were a very heavy burden upon this country and that their value was not commensurate with the cost of keeping them up.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that they were a source of embarrassment in Palestine or Egypt?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I meant on the French front, and later on in other centres of the War also. Just at the time when the transport of food in this country was exceptionally difficult there were these horses eating off their heads
on 40 lbs. of oats per day. [HON. MEMBERS: "14!"] The House need not be amused at my statement. It did work out at 40 lbs. per day when you took into account the packing, the transport and the feeding staffs. That was an enormous weight to be carried. Over and over again the cavalry were sent to the front. Whenever there was a chance of a breakthrough, the cavalry came up to the second line of trenches, and the. P.B.I. greeted them with the usual hilarity. There they were once more. The attack failed and they went back. Right up to the end of the War it was maintained that a breakthrough would take place, and then the cavalry would at last come in. They were sent for at Cambrai after the first two or three days' successful fighting. The cavalry got off their horses, and the horses wandered about between the British and the German lines. The men knew instinctively that a man on a horse offering seven times as big a target as a man on foot was an absurdity. They were unable to get into the trenches. Hon. Members who were in the War will remember the horrible tragedy on the Roye Road, when, after the Australians had managed to break the line in August, 1918, cavalry were thrown on the road, and, after going some distance, came up against barbed wire fences on either side. A couple of machine guns got on to them and simply mowed them down in swathes.

Captain HOLT: May I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Member? I happened to be there on that occasion. Will he say how far the cavalry had gone before they came up against the barbed wire? I think it was 20 miles.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They had not got into action.

Captain HOLT: I do not want to interrupt again; but I was there, and I think the first cavalry division on that occasion took some 10,000 prisoners.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the. cavalry up to that point had not been in action.

Captain HOLT: I was in command of the cavalry squadron which was on that road, and, with the other squadron which was charging down the road, we had been in action three days.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point is this: When the cavalry got on that road
and in front of the barbed wire they were in a hopeless position against machine guns. As soon as they scattered, they were all right, but, when moving up and down the road, it was sheer murder to leave them in that position. It is admitted that in warfare like that on the Western front cavalry are not used. They are useful as a screen, but aeroplanes have taken a great deal of the work of strategical reconnaissance absolutely out of the hands of the cavalry, and even the armoured cars have taken the place of the cavalry as a screen. The armoured car in the early days of the War in Belgium, before we got down to trench warfare, was doing exactly the work done in the old days by the cavalry screen. They were feeling for the enemy and reporting his presence and his strength, and the very fact that they can get away quickly and that there are not so many people on board makes them a more effective weapon for this kind of work.
The Secretary of State for War says that cavalry are still required because our Empire is so scattered that there are many fields of operation other than Europe in which cavalry will be required. The hon. and gallant Member for Fare-ham (Sir J. Davidson), as well as myself, was in the South African, War, and we had the same question as to the value of cavalry then. After that war I thought that the question as to whether the arme blanche was of value had been solved. I do not think there was a single occasion in the South African War, which is the other typical extreme, in which the cavalry got home. There were endless occasions when the cavalry as mounted riflemen were of great value. It was a useful way of carrying riflemen long distances; it was not as cavalry they were useful, but as mounted infantry. I was with the Second Cavalry Brigade in the South African War, and when we went into action it was only by dismounting and using our rifles.
Now that we are mechanicalising the Army in all branches, I would urge the Government to see whether they cannot mechanicalise the cavalry arm as well as the transport service. The Secretary of State does not exclude the possibility of mechanicalising some sections of the Army, and interesting experiments were carried out during the last manœuvres.
It is extremely difficult to cut the traditions of the Army as to the best method of dragging a cart out of the heads of people who have been in the business all their lives, but we are finding that there are forms of transport, besides motor cars, that are quite as capable of getting over rough ground as any Army Service Corps wagon. Many economies might be made in this direction. We are keeping in the Artillery and the Army Service Corps a very large number of animals, and I think we ought to make experiments in order to see whether we cannot get that work done more cheaply and far more efficiently than at present. The Secretary of State said that he was not going to be rushed into any rash purchases of any particular forms of transport until he was quite certain he had got a type which was efficient for all purposes. While I agree that we ought not to go in for any big expenditure in mechanicalising the Army, I hope we are not going on with the purchase and manufacture of extinct forms of transport, or dying forms of transport.
Are we still making Army Service Corps wagons? Are we still going in for horse-drawn forms of vehicles, instead of reserving our resources for the purchase of mechanically-propelled vehicles as soon as we have found the right type? The biggest opportunity for retrenchment will undoubtedly come to the Army Council if they can bring themselves to envisage the possibility of doing without cavalry and substituting some mechanical means of working the screen for the purpose of getting information as to the enemy and carrying the infantry rapidly for long distances. That we should not be actually sacrificing anything in making the change when within a generation we shall probably find that mounted forces in the Army are looked upon as we now look upon the old forms of transport used in the South African War, that we ought to spend no money on renewing old forms of horse-drawn vehicles, but replace them as rapidly as possible with the best possible form of mechanical transport, I do not believe anybody who has been on active service in the infantry will disagree. I know that every cavalry officer feels bound to stand up for the value of his arm of the Service, but I ask him to reflect, when he compares the cost per rifle of the two Services, the infantry and the
cavalry, whether it is not obvious that if you have only a certain amount of money to spend you should spend it on the infantry and those other new forces which have been developed, rather than on a Service which has been exceptionally gallant record, but which has no longer a duty in the warfare we have to face now.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Without attempting to dictate to you, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help feeling some regret that my hon. and gallant Friend below me, the Member for the Upton Division of West Ham (Captain Holt), was not called upon to reply to the observations of the right hon. and gallant Member far Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who has just sat down—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member can give way.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I am very glad to do so.

Captain HOLT: I had anticipated saying a few words on the subject of the value of cavalry, but I did not know that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was going to attack my late branch of the Service on such a wide front as he has to-night. I can look at it partly from his point of view, because I served, not only in the cavalry, but also in the tanks, for which the right hon. and gallant Member appears to have an affection. If I look at cavalry from his point of view—he appeared to think they have not changed in any respect—I shall come to the same conclusions as he has, but we must remember that since the end of the War, owing to the agitation which has taken place on the subject of doing away with cavalry, then, has already been some reduction. The number of regiments has been reduced from 31 to 21. Three Special Reserve Regiments have gone altogether. The yeomanry regiments have been also reduced from 30 to 12. The policy which the right hon. Gentleman advocates, therefore, has been fairly well carried out. I think the time has arrived to call a halt in the reduction of cavalry regiments until we are quite certain that they are as useless as has been contended and that there is no role for them in any future war. I am perfectly prepared to defend the retention of the present number of cavalry
regiments, not only on the question of their value in the Middle East or the Far East, but actually in connection with their value in the fighting in France.
It was not the case that cavalry could not be used there, and I should like to point out that the cavalry arm was of the utmost value to the British Forces in France at several stages in the War. It cannot be denied by anyone that the very small number of cavalry which we had in 1914 were of inestimable value to General French, as he then was, when withdrawing in the face of the enormous number of Germans who were pressing upon him. It may be argued that this cuts both ways, since the Germans had cavalry, too, but I contend, and most people who were there will agree with me, that the failure of the Germans was not the failure of cavalry but the failure of cavalry inefficiently led. If we turn to the campaign of 1914, we shall find that in the race to the sea what really handicapped the British Army was the small number of our cavalry. If we had been in any way equal in numbers to the German cavalry, we might easily have won that race for the sea, and in that case it is doubtful if the War would have been stabilised: it would have been of such an open nature that the cavalry would have been again of great value.
I do not propose to go into the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman about the break-through. I agree with him to a very large extent. It is obvious that cavalry must have a certain amount of terrain to be used to the best advantage. In my opinion, they again entered into their own during the period when we were retreating in March, 1918. Had the German Army been possessed of two or three efficient cavalry divisions at that time, we should have had the greatest difficulty in re-establishing our line, and that line would have been a good deal further back than it was. It was during that time that I was serving with the Tanks. I can say without hesitation that in a situation of that kind it is impossible for tanks to hold up an advancing and victorious enemy, and that in defence tanks are really of very little use. Again, if we take the last 100 days of the War, after the Battle of Amiens, when we were advancing towards the Hindenburg line, and after, the moral effect of the cavalry was such that lasted until the end of the War. But the great
difficulty with us was not that cavalry was useless, but that instead of having two divisions and a bit, we should have had four or five divisions. Once the enemy is broken, there can be no doubt that cavalry is the arm that is going to, keep them on the move more than anything else.
It is asserted nowadays that tanks and aeroplanes are to take the place of cavalry. With modern tactics and camouflage, aeroplanes may do long distance reconnaissance, but they cannot do short distance reconnaissance, which must be left to the cavalry. It is obvious that a tank making a very great noise will give many opportunities to the enemy to conceal themselves. It is quite impossible for tanks to be used with advantage in such terrain as marshy ground, or for crossing a river when the bridges have been blow up. I understand that these are the lessons drawn from the combined exercises. I believe it was found that cavalry, tanks and aeroplanes were not mutually antagonistic, but complementary arms. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to think very carefully before he gives his consent to a reduction in the number of the cavalry, unless he has the absolute advice of his military advisers to take such a course. On the question of cost alone, having searched the Estimates I have found that a tank battalion costs every year over twice as much as a cavalry regiment costs. Of course, if the view he taken of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that cavalry are absolutely useless, I agree that any expenditure on cavalry is throwing money away. But I feel that it has not yet been proved that cavalry are useless, and in any circumstances, no matter where the next war may be—unless in the meantime there is a very great development of mechanical traction—it will be necessary to have as a nucleus at least as many cavalry as we have now.

Mr. BROAD: I wish to deal with the conditions of service of Government employés in ordnance factories, with special reference to the way in which the Government have treated old servants who have devoted their life to work for the community. At one time men employed in the Ordnance Departments were pensionable. The Act of 1859 stated that
pensions were applicable, not only to those who were paid by the hour or by the week, but even to those whose wages were calculated hourly. It also contemplated the position of men who were engaged casually. At a later time the Government of the day, or the Department, began to exclude all those who were workmen in the ordinary sense, whether skilled artisans or labourers. So -we had the position that, side by side at the bench or in the shop, there were men engaged on pensionable terms and men who were not. The men at the Arsenal and at the small arms factories at Enfield and Waltham felt that they had not been fairly dealt with, and that the intention of the Act was not being carried out. So strong was the feeling that a little later the Government discharged all men they possibly could discharge. I knew one particular case of a man in the prime of life, 43 years of age, with something like 30 years' service, who was paid off from Enfield with 28s. a week pension, rather than that he should stay in the works doing his work as an object lesson to the other men of what they had lost.
One Government after another has been adamant on the question. The men have, through their representatives, approached various Governments, and have asked for the introduction of a new contributory superannuation scheme. There has been deputation after deputation, but to-day that which is conceded by most of the big public companies in the country, or the semi-public companies, and by local authorities to their workmen, is denied to workmen employed by the War Office. What is more, during the last period of reduction since the War, the Department has discharged from the Arsenal and from the Enfield small arms factories a very big proportion of men who have had many years' service, and has discharged them very often before the normal time. It had been the rule of the Department that men should be retired compulsorily at 65 years of age, or at a lower age, of course, if they were unable to give satisfactory service. But since the War, while younger men have been kept on, these old servants, who have never worked in any other employment, and who for a great proportion of their time were receiving only 19s. or so per week,
have now been discharged at a time of life when they have to wait 15 years or more before they can qualify for an old age pension, and at an age when they are not likely to secure employment elsewhere. They are being thrown on the funds of the Poor Law.
I know of 800 of such men, ex-Government workers of the Enfield factory. They have been discharged after decades of service for the country. I have abstracted from their records some cases which will give an idea of what is occurring. These are men who are admittedly still capable of doing their work. One is a man 64 years of age. Within another year he would have been retired compulsorily. He has finished 51 years' service, and he is discharged without a penny of superannuation. The next case is that of a man of 63, with 49 years' employment in Government service. Other cases are as follows: Age 62, 49 years' service; age 62, 48 years' service; age 62, 48 years' service; age 62, 48 years' service; age 63, 48 years' service; age 61, 47½ years' service; age 61, 47 years' service. So I could go on with page after page of cases of men who have been turned out from the Department while younger men have been retained. I claim that these men have at least a moral claim, having once proved their value, to be continually employed until they have exhausted the time up to their 65th birthdays.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The hon. Member does not suggest that they did not get the bonus to which they were entitled?

Mr. BROAD: No. I will deal with that later. These men were all under the impression, as I think they were entitled to be, that it was the intention of the Act of 1859 to give a pension to all the men in regular employment. It was only the casual people who were not to be pensioned. At a later period, rather than meet that just claim, the Government arranged that men of over seven years' service, at the discretion of the Minister, should be given a bonus of one week's wages for each year of service. If you take the men's wages at the basic rate you will see that the bonus does not amount to a great deal, and that it will be exhausted within a few years. At all
events it is not sufficient to maintain a man, even under the most miserable conditions, from 55 to 70 years of age. That is taking a case where a man received £2 a week. It might be sufficient to keep him in opium, so that he could go to sleep with a label "Wake me up when I am 70 years of age."
7.0 P.M.
These people have a very great claim, more particularly because of all the promises made to them during the War. At that time these men could have left and could have earned much higher wages elsewhere, but they were assured repeatedly that the Government would recognise their patriotic and devoted services, and would give them recognition when the War was over. Instead of getting that recognition, they are being thrown on the scrap-heap before their time, and in those districts where there are Government works there is a tremendous charge on the Poor Law. I do not think that any well-established firm, any great company, any railway company, much as we abuse railway companies, would discharge its old servants just before the time when they were entitled to a pension. I hope that the Government will recognise that this question of the superannuation of old employés of long service is now becoming more and more recognised as an economic expenditure of money. I worked at the bench until I came into this House, and I know that the workman is beset through his life with carping care and anxiety as to what is going to happen to him, his wife, and youngsters as time goes on and he passes the zenith of his power, lest after he passes 55 years of age the firm should cast him on one side and force him to go into the gutter.
That is the position of many thousands in the Government service who have done loyal service to the community. I hope the Minister in his reply will say that he fully intends to take this matter up and see that a satisfactory superannuation scheme, on a contributory basis if necessary, is accepted for all Government factories. I hope at the same time that consideration will be had, not only to the future, but to those men with long years of service, spent in working for the Departments anal also to those men who have had from 35 to 50 years' service with the Government
and have been discharged since the War so that something may be allowed them and they may live in decency and security for the few years they still have left. We have only this one day a year on which we can talk on this subject, and we have not had this question raised before in debate on this occasion. There has been great courtesy on the part of the Ministers and their Secretaries when we have met them on deputations, but that is all that we have been able to get from them.
There is one other consideration to which I should like to refer. It is being recognised by all decent employers to-day that men are better in health and give better service if the drab monotony of their toil is broken up by one brief holiday every year. It is recognised by the railway companies, who give the porters and all the rest of their staffs an annual holiday. It is recognised throughout the printing trades, and nearly all the municipalities give their workers a holiday. I do not think that they lose by it. Any employer who makes that concession will find that he gets better service. There is a better spirit among the workers. I know what it means to go through year after year without a break. I know what it means as a workman at a bench with three boys to educate, perhaps to pay for a secondary school education, only able to get the mother away for a week and having to go on year after year working without a break. I feel that I could have done better service if I had had a holiday. If from time to time these men do take a holiday, the loss of wages and the expenses of the holiday mean a cheese-paring existence for them from one year's. end to another in order to try to make up that break.
I hope the Government will fall into line like a previous Government did in 1880, when, not behind but in advance of most other employers, it established an eight-hour clay for all workers. It proved its value to the rest of the community, and it is generally applied today. I hope that the Government will today accept the lead that all the best employers are giving and grant at least 12 days' working holiday with pay to all Government workers. If there be the difficulty of those not employed for a full year, then it should be remembered that our municipalities are conceding to those
only temporarily employed one day's holiday for each month of service. I am not going to deal with the allocation of work, which was so well dealt with by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell), but will only ask the Minister to deal with those two points.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: May I express my thanks for being allowed to give way just now to the hon. and gallant Member for Upton (Captain Holt) so that he could reply to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I was very glad to hear the congratulations which the latter offered to the Secretary of State for War on the reduction of £2,000,000 that he has made. It seems to me that these Estimates are no ordinary Estimates and that this reduction, seven years after the Great War has ended and when the forces have been reduced to a very low establishment, is a very great achievement. It reflects very great credit on the Army Council and on the Secretary of State. When one comes to analyse the nature of these reductions they are found to involve largely either a reduction in pay or discharges in certain cases or else a postponement of expenditure which in itself was desirable, such as, if I may give an example, the postponement of expenditure on the extension of the manœuvre area in Salisbury Plain, and the postponement of the purchase and manufacture of necessary stores. I hope it may be accepted now by the House and by the country that any further reduction in cost in the Army must be effected either by cuts in pay or by a postponement of essential services. The late Minister of War said last year very justly that the only justification for a small Army is that efficiency should be kept as high as possible. I am sure the Army has derived great advantage from the manœuvres held during last year, and I trust that, whatever cuts may be made, it may be always possible to find money for manœuvres from time to time. I am sure that it is by that means, and by that means alone, the Army can be kept in the state of efficiency desired by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
There is one other point in that connection which I desire to make. The strength of the Army is practically up to
establishment, recruiting is satisfactory, but this year, as is stated in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State, an unusual number of men have to leave the colours, and therefore recruiting must be maintained at its present level. Last year, there was some comment from the benches opposite on the fact that five out of every eight men presenting themselves for recruitment were rejected. Statements were made to the effect that it illustrated the terrible economic conditions in which the country finds itself. I am very glad to find in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State this year what I think to be the real cause, and that is the very high standard which is exacted from recruits to-day, not merely in physique but also in character and education. The result is that the Army to-day is filled with men who are rather above the average of those in civil life. It seems to me that that should be and ought to be a very strong inducement to employers to snap up the soldier as soon as he leaves the colours, and should therefore facilitate his re-entry into civil life.
One word about the Reserve. On the 1st April, 1926, the number will be approximately 96,000 against 99,000 which, I believe, was anticipated last year. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to explain the cause of that falling off. In 1927, on the same date, the approximate number anticipated is 7,000 less, namely, 89,000, and a further fall is expected in 1927–8. In the absence of further explanation of the causes of this fall, it seems to me that this shortage in the Reserve is rather serious. It must be remembered that these Reserves are the sole means of bringing fighting units up to strength when they are wanted, of keeping them at full strength, and of providing the training battalion necessary to train recruits to replace the wastage of war. Some draft-finding machinery is necessary. The Territorial Army does not, and is not intended to, provide drafts for the Regular Army. Its role is quite distinct. It has been said that it is the accepted medium for expansion. That means that it is the accepted medium for providing further forces to place side by side with the Regular Forces arid not to provide the recruits for the Regular Army. It is not an Army Reserve therefore, but a Reserve Army. I cannot help feeling that this question of draft finding machinery is far
from satisfactory. I know that the reason is once more finance, but there is a very strong case, as soon as the finances of the country permit, for the reconstitution of the Special Reserve.
That force in South Africa and in the Great War rendered services to tins country really of incalculable value. They trained and sent to the front something like 2,000,000 men—over 1,800,000 men. That really is about one-quarter of the entire forces that were raised in the British Empire during the late War. A quarter of those forces went through the Special Reserve and was trained by them. It is the constitutional force and embodies the old traditions of the militia. I confess that I would like to see an early beginning made in its reconstitution. I do not suggest that a battalion of the Special Reserve should be provided for every battalion at home, but it might be possible to provide perhaps a battalion for every division of the Territorial Army, or to have one Special Reserve battalion to a group of regiments arranged geographically in the country—eight or ten of them as a beginning. I would commend that suggestion to the Secretary of State for War. There will be other opportunities of speaking on the proposal for the institution of a Ministry of Defence. For the present I merely record my continued view that the only real solution of the problem of getting economy with efficiency in the forces of the Crown, is by some closer co-ordination such as a Ministry of Defence.

CADET CORPS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
in the opinion of this House, further steps should be taken to develop Cadet Corps and inquiry made as to the possibility of increasing the supply of Candidates for Commissions in the Army by making the conditions more attractive.
I think there is satisfaction in all parts of the House at the statement of the Secretary of State for War regarding the grant of £15,000 for the Territorial Cadet Corps which the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to renew. There may also, however, be a feeling in this House and throughout the country, that £15,000 is not a generous contribu-
tion from the State to an organisation which is doing such valuable work for the youth of the country. I would remind the House that this sum represents only a small portion of the money required for this purpose, most of that money being in fact raised by the cadets and those who support the movement. The cadet organisation of 1914 numbered about 40,000 and I observe that in the War years that number was raised to about 100,000, showing that when there was war there was an immediate movement to increase the supply of these cadets. It will be in the recollection of seine hon. Members that in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 a grant was made by the Government of between £30,000 and £40,000 for the cadets.
In 1923 the grant was removed altogether, but in 1925 it was restored in a reduced form. A few months later, however, a further statement emanated from the Government, to the effect that it was doubtful if even that smaller grant was to be relied upon. It is evident that it is almost impossible to carry on the work of these cadet corps as it ought to be carried on, if there is to he such uncertainty as to what is going to happen in the future. The grant at present, is a small one and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able not only to say that this £15,000 will be given in future, but also to indicate that the Government look with a favourable eye on the work of cadet corps and on the possibility of increasing the State support of the movement. I quite realise at a time like the present when we are dealing with the necessity for economy in all branches of the administration, even a sum of £15,000 is not to be ignored, but I ask the House to remember the comprehensive evidence which has been given from time to time by those most closely connected with cadet corps as to the value of the organisation, especially for the poorer sections of the community and in the training of youth. I am not prepared to argue the merits of cadet corps primarily from the military point of view and I do not think it necessary to do so. I do not think that is the point of view from which we might to look at the matter. The question is: What are the physical and moral advantages which accrue from this system of training? I noticed with great
interest that the late headmaster of Eton, speaking of officers training corps, said:
Leaving the question of militarism on one side, what has been the educational effect of the Officers Training Corps? Without any hesitation whatever, I assert that it has been good in proportion, as it has met with encouragement and co-operation from the authorities. It trains young fellows to think through doing, and it is only a small minority who can learn think in any other way … No boy, however bookishly inclined, can get anything but good from a field day or oven from the ordinary drill in the Sandhurst gymnasium. Observation, alertness, responsibility for quick decision and quick inference, and, above all, obedience, besides all the splendid physical effects—these are some of the desirable effect of our Officers Training Corps' work. … I am quite confident that the military training is entirely free from the taint of militarism, and that in its positive influence it is one of the best and most wholesome agencies in education that has yet been devised.
That is the evidence in regard to the Officers Training Corps, and there is equal evidence in connection with cadet corps. From all parts of the country there were great expressions of regret when it was found that the Government were going to withdraw this grant in 1923, and equal expressions of satisfaction when it was found this year that it would be restored. I hope, apart from any question of military value, the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to give encouragement to these corps. I hope he will also make it clear that the association of the cadet corps with the War Office will continue, so that the boys may not look upon the work of these cadet corps simply as an extra series of lessons—to which it is natural for boyhood to object—but that it will be regarded as a definite and separate training of boys for their civil and patriotic duties, as citizens of the country who are preparing to take part in the country's defence if necessary.
I also wish to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the position of another class of cadets, namely, those who earn commissions in the services by entrance to the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College. If, as appears to be the ease, our Army is to be a very small one then it is essential that it should be extremely efficient and at no time has it been more important than at the present that we should have men to lead the Army and to direct its
destinies drawn from the very best class of candidates we can find. I am led to believe that there is by no means a superfluity of candidates for admission to the Royal Military Academy or the Royal Military College at present. I do not know that there is actually a shortage, but I believe there is no surplus. The House should insist that the conditions for those candidates should be such as to bring about the entry of boys of the very best class. In that connection, the action of the War Office towards a certain section of Woolwich cadets is not likely to encourage the entry of boys of that class or to make them satisfied at the outset of their military careers. It has been brought to my notice that certain Woolwich cadets who passed the entrance examination in November, 1923, are today in a worse position than similar cadets who passed into Sandhurst at the same time and are suffering under disabilities as regards their future outlook which are not likely either to inspire confidence in the candidates themselves, or encourage other parents to enter their sons for the Army.
In October, 1925, a Royal Warrant was issued which reduced the pay and prevented these candidates from getting promotion for a further year. In effect, they were put back for a year. The position is best summed up in this way. The candidates for Sandhurst and Woolwich respectively, passed the examination at the same time in 1923 and certain of the Woolwich candidates who took the highest marks find themselves to-day, six months behind other candidates who passed into Sandhurst with a lower number of marks. That is a most extraordinary position. The period of training in Sandhurst was reduced to 18 months, but in the case of Woolwich it remains two years. The Royal Warrant which reduces this pay and delays their promotion operates before the Woolwich cadets have completed their training and the result is that after they leave Woolwich they find themselves in the position of being behind Sandhurst cadets who obtained fewer marks at the same examination, and they have lost six months' pay, six months' seniority and, in the end, most of them will lose six months' service towards pensions. I feel that this matter cannot have been thoroughly under-
stood in the War Office. It has been said that
the British soldier can stand up to anything except the British War Office,
and this certainly seems to be an illustration of the difficulty which even in the early stages of his career an officer experiences in getting a grievance of this sort dealt with adequately. The military authorities have made it clear in an Order issued by the Army Council that the ability to pass with high enough marks to enter Woolwich was of greater merit than in the case of Sandhurst. That Order run, as follows:
A candidate succeeding to a vacancy at the Royal Military Academy, for which his order of merit does not entitle him, will forfeit any cadetship he may have obtained at the Royal Military College.
Yet the extraordinary result is that candidates who in the examination in October, 1923, got, say, 5,000 marks are to-day six months better off in pay, seniority and eventual service for pensions than candidates who got 12,000 marks. I do not know what the reason for this may be. I am told it is possibly due to the fact that at the time the Royal Warrant was issued, there was a revisal of the period of training in view and that the period for Woolwich had not been settled, whereas at Sandhurst it had been settled. That may or may not be the case, but it is unfair that the candidate himself should suffer by any default or delay, inevitable or otherwise on the part of the War Office. I do not enter into the merits of the question of whether the training should be two years or 18 months. I do not intend to give any expression of opinion on that point, although very definite opinions have been expressed against the reduction of the period. But if it is, in fact, not advisable to reduce the period then we have this further extraordinary result that, in fact, the Sandhurst candidate, having done 18 months' training at the expense of his parents is now really getting a further six months' training with pay as a 1st Lieutenant at the expense of the State, whereas the Woolwich candidate who got better marks has to do that six months' training at the expense of his parents and also lose pay and seniority.
I think it will be agreed that as there is a guarantee on the part of the parent when he enters his son as a candidate at
the Royal Military Academy or the Royal Military College that he will undertake to continue the payment for the cadet for such period as the State requires, there is also an implied guarantee on the part of the State that nothing shall be altered to the detriment of the candidate from the time he enters until he gains his commission. I think the House fully appreciates the position which I have tried to put before it and will agree that it is one which we are justified in pressing on the Secretary of State and asking that he will, without delay, have it put right, because once he clearly understands how this small number of candidates is suffering because of the application of the Royal Warrant, I am confident that the matter will be put right.

Major S. HARVEY: Is it not also a fact that these candidates who have been to Woolwich now come under the new scale of pay, which, in fact, is less than the pay which the candidates who have been a shorter period at Sandhurst will draw under the Royal Warrant?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I think that is the case, and it, of course, strengthens the argument very much, indeed. At any rate, from the points of view of inequality of treatment, of losing seniority for six months' pay, and service for pension, there is sufficient, I think, to make the House feel justified in asking the Secretary of State to put these matters in order. The procedure for doing that seems to me to be perfectly simple and easy. The remedy is to antedate the commissions of the Woolwich cadets to the same date as those who passed into Sandhurst at, the same examination. If that were done, it would remove the inequality of treatment, it would remove a feeling of soreness, and it would remove what is really having a very bad effect, not only on the candidates themselves but on those who are responsible for recommending an Army career for them.

SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word on the question of the supply of officers, because I have for many years done what I could to increase that supply. It has been my experience that a considerable proportion of the candidates with the best brains has gone into the Cavalry. I mention
that because the Cavalry has been referred to sometimes as the "stupid arm," but the proof that a considerable proportion of the brains of the Army has been in the Cavalry arm is to be found in the fact that such a large proportion of the highest commands in the Army, beginning with the Commander-in-Chief, at the end of the War, were drawn from the Cavalry. The Haldane Committee in 1923 made several recommendations. They recommended the raising of the lower limit of age to 18, they recommended revision of the instruction at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and they recommended that the principle of selection should be introduced with regard to promotion. I was very glad to hear from the Secretary of State that that principle is now to be extensively introduced, and at the same time I was glad to hear him say that there would be no interference with the esprit de corps and the traditions of a regiment, because the effect of the esprit de corps and the traditions of a regiment has been to produce a constant supply of officers for that regiment, generation after generation, and anything that would interfere with those two great influences in the Army would tend to diminish the supply, instead of, as at present, increasing it.
There were other recommendations of the Haldane Committee, and those recommendations have been, to a large extent, adopted, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the effect of adopting them still continues to be favourable in the supply of officers. He told us last year that the conditions of supply were gradually improving and that the number of commissions from the ranks was 30, from the universities 34, and from Sandhurst and Woolwich 395. I would like to ask whether the supply of candidates from the universities is being maintained. The Haldane Committee recommended that commissions gained by candidates from the universities should be antedated, and it would be interesting to learn whether the effect of that antedating has been to maintain the supply of candidates from the universities. I am sure the House was gratified to hear that there are 45 cadetships kept at Sandhurst for candidates from the ranks, and that it was parti-
cularly gratified to hear of the recent brilliant success of one of those candidates.
My right hon. Friend told us that there was no shortage of officers at the present time except a seasonal shortage. The general impression at present is that there is a considerable shortage of candidates for Sandhurst, largely due to the fact that those candidates have to gain a school-leaving certificate before they can be accepted. It is true, I believe, that any candidate who has gained a school-leaving certificate ipso facto enters Sandhurst, but one would like some information on that point. With regard to inducements to maintain the supply of officers, the chief inducements, I think, are the feeling that the profession of a soldier is a profession equal to any other profession, that it is a real profession of a permanent character, that the instruction at Sandhurst and Woolwich is of the best kind, and that officers constitute a profession which is necessary and useful to the country.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I desire in a couple of sentences to enforce the appear which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) in regard to the relative disability which has been imposed upon those cadets who have respectively come out of Woolwich and Sandhurst last year. As far as I am able to understand the case, a very grievous and unintelligible disability has been placed upon those better candidates who obtained entrance to Woolwich in October. 1923, and I hope that when my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office comes to reply to this Amendment, he will give to the House an assurance that that matter will be carefully inquired into and that an apparent wrong will be set right.

Captain KING: I think it may be for the convenience of the House and for the expedition of business if I reply to this Amendment now, so that we may get later on to a general discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) has raised a point. first of all, with regard to the Territorial cadets. I am afraid that he has not given us full appreciation for the grant which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen his way to recommence both for last year and for the coming year. I would remind him that not only
is there this grant of £15,000, but we also give considerable advantages to these Territorial cadet units in assisting them to carry out their training. I will not go into details, but he is probably aware that there are various points such as the use of War Department lands, the loan of camp equipment under certain conditions, and also, when commands are able to spare qualified instructors, they are allowed to be loaned to the cadet units. I will not go into the actual details beyond pointing out to my hon. Friend that the War Office, as a Department, is doing a considerable amount for those very estimable units. He has drawn the attention of the House to their physical and moral advantages. I quite agree. The physical and moral advantages are really in excess of the military advantages, and, therefore, the War Department should hardly be called upon to defray the whole of the cost of such units.
When they were first started, and indeed after 1908, when the War Department first gave any recognition to these units, it was understood that the bulk of the expenses of organisation and administration should be defrayed by public subscription. There are many philanthropic people who take a great interest in the training of boys, and they provide the funds necessary for the training of these units. They still do so to a large extent. My hon. Friend was saying that the War Department had found some £30,000 to £40,000 per annum in the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, but that was because, after the War, the philanthropic supply of funds had fallen off very considerably and was not nearly sufficient to meet the needs of the largely increased numbers of boy cadets who had joined during the war time. It was in 1923–24 found impossible to continue that support, and, therefore, they were deprived of the assistance from War Department funds, but I am very glad that it has been found possible to make the grant for last year and the present year, because it may interest the House to know that these Territorial cadet units are of very real assistance to the recruiting both of the Territorial Army and of the Regular Forces. I have here the details for the years 1921 and 1922. In 1921 the direct enlistment in the Territorial Force from Territorial cadet units amounted to 1,962 and in other branches of His Majesty's Forces to 1,535. In 1922
the figures were, for the Territorial Force, 1,425, and for other branches of His Majesty's Forces 1,288.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think, in view of those figures, which are extremely interesting and valuable, and considering that some 80 per cent., I am told, of those applying for enlistment last year were rejected as unfit, that a small grant of £15,000 is the very least that can be expected, and much too small an amount for the Government to give?

Captain KING: I am justifying the expenditure from War Department funds of such a sum as £15,000. In these hard times, when all other branches of His Majesty's Services have to be cut down, I think it is extraordinarily satisfactory that we can adduce such figures of direct enlistments in the forces as to justify the expenditure of £15,000 per year. The other point that my hon. Friend brought forward was with regard to certain cadets at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, cadets who joined Woolwich at the same time as a certain batch of cadets joined Sandhurst. It may clear the matter a little if I point out that at Sandhurst they do a course of 18 months, and at Woolwich a course of two years. Therefore, previous to this time, it has always been the case that the cadets going to Woolwich would answer the description my hon. Friend has put, that they lose six months' seniority—they lose six months' time.
That has been the case throughout, because the term of the course at Woolwich is six months longer than the course at Sandhurst, but where the real hard ease which is put forward has occurred, is in the introduction of the new rates of pay for officers, which came into force as from the 26th October of last year. That was a definite date on which the pay of all newly commissioned officers was based. As so often happens in a case of any definite date, any actual line of demarcation usually leaves certain hard cases on either side of the line. Of these particular cadets, we find that the cadets just passed out from Sandhurst on the right side of the date line. The Woodwich cadets, having to complete another six months, unfortunately came on the wrong side, and come on the new rates of pay. That
regrettable position in which they found themselves has been carefully considered, and I am glad now to be able to inform my hon. Friend that a decision has been arrived at as follows: The Woolwich cadets are to be antedated, when they are commissioned, to the date on which the Sandhurst cadets (who entered at the same time) got their commissions for the purposes of Army seniority, and for eligibility for the pre-26th October, 1925, rates of pay, and promotion to lieutenant after two years instead of three years. It will affect them in two ways—on the question of pay and on the question of promotion. I think everybody will realise it is one of those cases where a hard dividing line would fall with harshness on a particular body of men.

Brigadier-General WARNER: Is it intended to ante-date in future all the commissions of the Woodwich cadets?

Captain KING: I was careful in reading out these particular words to say it was for that particular batch of cadets only. This decision could not go further than that. Those are the ones largely affected in comparison with their brothers from Sandhurst, and that particular batch of cadets from Woolwich are the only ones to which I am referring. The only other point to which I need reply is that

raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) with regard to the effect of the Haldane Committee's Report on the entrants to commissioned rank. I will only say it is too early to be able to give a definite opinion on the effect of those proposals. I would point out that with regard to entrants from the Universities, the entrants are very considerably better in the summer term than in the winter term. It is not possible to give exact details, but I may tell my hon. Friend that in one particular summer term, under the terms of the Report., we obtained 70 entrants from the Universities. That, of course, is a very satisfactory figure, and we hope that those conditions may continue.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: At the end of the summer term the course is completed?

Captain KING: Twice a year they join. I do not think there are any further points raised, and I would ask my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to allow it to be negatived without the necessity of a Division.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes,85.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[7.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Albery, Irving James
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cope, Major William
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Hanbury, C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Balniel, Lord
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hawke, John Anthony


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Berry, Sir George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hills Major John Waller


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elveden, Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
England, Colonel A.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C,(Berks, Newb'y)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Homan. C. W. J.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Forrest, W,
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F.
Hurd, Percy A.


Casseis, J. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gee, Captain R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Jacob, A. E.


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Peto, G. (Somerset. Fronie)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Phillpson, Mabel
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Radford. E. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ramsden, E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Loder, J. de V.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remer, J. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lumley, L. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Ward. Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macintyre, Ian
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


McLean, Major A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ropner, Major L.
Watts, Dr. T.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rye, F. G.
Wells, S. R.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Capt. D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexhem)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Withers, John James


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Col. Hon.G. F. (will'sden, E.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wragg, Herbert


Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. Westm'eland)



Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Storry-Deans, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oakley, T.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Strickland, Sir Gerald



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Renale (Penistone)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Clowes, S.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.Col. D. (Rhondda)


Cove, W. G.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Crawfurd, H. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dennison, R
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, C.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Purcell, A. A.
Wright, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.



Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John



Bill read a Second time.

Supply considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 159,400, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927.

Mr. ATTLEE: There are one or two points I should like to raise with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the Estimates. I must say that the former make-up of the Estimates was a great deal easier to follow than the present parti-coloured arrangement. This change, this reversion to the old practice has been brought about, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, by the practical casting aside of the Lawrence
Report. I do not want to deal with that matter at any great length, except, perhaps, to comment on the complete change in the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to have cooled off from extreme love to extreme contempt. The suggestion is that the real difficulty has been brought about by the fact that the Lawrence Report was approved in principle, and then turned down by the Departmental Committee which was considering its application. Everybody recognises that the application of the principles of the Lawrence Report could not have been effected straight away. Really, the important point of the Lawrence Report was a viewpoint of economy; it was an endeavour to some extent to decentralise financial control.
I believe that the carrying out to their logical conclusion of the principles of the Lawrence Report would have been to make the officers in command of the various units in the Army responsible for their finance. I think that the allotment of a definite sum to a definite unit, whether command or whatever it might be, might be an inducement to economy. In a certain amount of free money, and in what was being saved on one item being used on another item, I believe there was a valuable principle, and a. very valuable incentive to economy. To apply the Lawrence Report would have been to ensure that possibility.
It seems curious that a Government pledged to economy should take a step like this. I am wondering whether it is entirely the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or whether it was dictated by the peculiar economy views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer! I illustrate that viewpoint in considering a curious little economy which, I understand, has been made in regard to the funds of the Territorial Associations. I understand that a certain proportion of their surplus funds are to be taken by way of free gift to aid the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his difficulties. It rather reminds one of the old times in our history, when there were what were called "benevolences," when gifts were very kindly made to the King, and if those concerned did not make the gifts, then they were in for it.
The Territorial associations have certain sums allotted to them which they have to spend in the best possible way.
Certainly, the accounts of Territorial associations show great variety. I can remember when I was at the War Office that certain Territorial associations were very well managed, and had surplus funds, whilst others not only spent up to the hilt, but were actually in debt. Where there was a surplus of money it was an incentive for the future on the part of these Territorial associations to make the best possible use of their funds. Everybody knows in the Army system of rations there is no incentive to save, for it always means that you get the actual ration; therefore the principle of giving the advantage to the careful person—a very valuable principle from the point of view of economy—is not present. This would seem to be precisely the policy the Chancellor of the Exchequer is applying to the approved societies under his Economy Bill. But we will discuss that tomorrow, and I cannot go into it to-day; but it is simply a false view of economy that wherever you have a surplus by good management, it should be raided. It removes the incentive to economy for the future. That is, I think, the first point in that connection, and it is borne out by the failure to apply the Lawrence Report; in fact the failure to put into force the Lawrence Report means a reversion to the old system of set financial control by the War Office. That has been a very valuable thing in past times. It was due to the tightening up of financial control that we got reforms in the Army in the last 30 or 40 years before the War. It is generally recognised, however, that that tendency has gone quite far enough, and that now you have to decentralise. However, I leave that point.
I will next follow up the point at made by the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) as to the cost of the depots and the system of training recruits in the depots. We have at present, exclusive of the Guards Depot and the Rifle Brigade Depot, some 63 separate depots engaged in training recruits. I have got particulars from the right hon. Gentleman as to the Western Command, and I find that the average number of recruits passing through each depot is somewhere about 300 recruits per year. The time of training recruits is 20 weeks. Thus we see that the total number of recruits in a depot at any one time averages 120 to 130. You have a staff at the depot. These
staffs average 76; therefore you have really two recruits to one training officer or man. That seems to me to be much too high altogether. It comes about by the multiplication of the number of small training centres. Each of these training schools has a major or a colonel in command. To take one example, each depot has a sergeant-cook for 200 men, whereas a battalion of 770 men manages with only one. This is due to the number of separate centres for training recruits, and there is the overhead cost, which is greater than if you had them more centralised.
We have 63 different centres. Many of them are very unsuitable and not specially fitted for the work of training soldiers. They are situated, very likely, in the middle of an industrial town. I claim that at the present time we need reconstruction in this matter. We must remember that the Special Reserve has gone. We look in the future for any expansion of the Army in time of war to the Territorial Force. That principle has been definitely laid down. I suggest that the right way would be to group the various units together and let them have a joint depot for training. I think you would get at once a big saving in personnel, and a big saving in building, and you would probably get better training accommodation at a lower cost. That suggestion may, to the right hon. Gentleman, seem worthy of consideration. The cost of accommodation at these depots is something over £160,000 a year, so there is economy worth going for.
The next point that I should like to raise would be what the right hon. Gentleman first said in regard to promotion by merit. He gave us some details in regard to the new scheme whereby there is to be no interference with the ordinary promotion from second lieutenant to major, but, after that, we have recourse to selection by merit. Even before that dividing line we have promotion for those who are specially qualified. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the necessity for not interfering with the esprit de corps. I think we all recognise the need for preserving the esprit de corps, and the great difficulty of bringing in senior officers from other units to supersede, possibly, someone who every one else thought was going to get the command
of the unit. I recognise that difficulty. I think the real answer is that our units in the infantry are too small. You have one list in the artillery. In the infantry you have your two-battalion regiments. You have that as your unit.
I think that we should group our battalions, and practically have one arrangement for promotion between four battalions instead of two. I would not change the names of those units, but simply link them together. There will be, of course, the objection as regards the esprit de corps and the old historic view. That was the great difficulty which Mr. Cardwell had to face when he linked up the battalions many years ago. To-day the regiments are too small a unit. I would like to see the battalions bigger; then you might save on the depots and interchange the officers, and have promotion according to merit among these units, while at the same time retaining the regiments by their particular names. I think that could be, quite possible. I believe that during the War many of the regiments came to know other regiments very, very closely, and you got that sort of community feeling that I should like to are grow into a larger unit
I think there is a great danger in this matter of promotion by merit. It needs to be carefully watched. There is the possible chance that promotion by merit gives an. officer or a man promotion who happens to be the best known to those in the higher command. There is a danger that the officer who has had staff experience, and perhaps has come to be better known, may get a pull over the man who has been slogging away at regimental duties, therefore, the larger unit system would probably be fairer and hold the balance better between the claims of seniority and the claims of merit than any such very drastic scheme as the right hon. Gentleman proposes. As to the higher command, we must have promotion by merit there; but I think everyone will realise that there are always instances arising in which someone is supposed to have been passed over for this reason or that, and at present there is no very satisfactory tribunal of appeal for the officer so passed over. I have no cut and dried solution for this difficulty. There is an appeal to the Army Council, but that does not carry us very much further; but the fact that the difficulty does arise—
everyone knows of individual instances—makes it important that we should go very, very carefully in this promotion by merit system. I notice that we spend £154,000 on the Officers' Training Corps. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what proportion of Territorial officers come from the Officers' Training Corps, or what proportion enter the ranks of the Territorials from the Officers' Training Corps. If we have an Officers' Training Corps we ought to see that we get full value, and at present I am not at all sure that it is worth the money that we spend on it.
With regard to chemical warfare I observe that on experimental work at Porton and elsewhere we are spending something like £148,000. Is that wholly on defensive arrangements, or is it partly on offensive preparations? I think we ought to know that. In our time we have all denounced chemical warfare. It was regarded with horror when introduced in the war, but we know that it was taken up by all the nations in the field, and although it may be morally banned now it may come up again. We ought to know something of the work that is being done, and what kind of experiments are being undertaken. I myself think this Government ought to take the lead in the suppression of chemical warfare altogether. It may be merely sentimental, it probably is, to object to be killed by gas or disease rather than by bayonet or bomb, but I believe that objection is held very strongly. I believe we are bound at the present time merely to carry into effect defensive work; but in chemical experiments, it is, as a matter of fact, quite impossible to separate the defensive and the offensive side of the work. Chemical warfare, if engaged in at all, is generally considered to he one of the ultra-civilised forms of warfare. I take it it is not proposed to use chemical warfare in the small wars which are undertaken by this country all over the world. As far as I understand, this country is nut contemplating the possibility of a European war in the near future. I understand that the role of the Army at the present time is to serve as a sort of central reserve for the Empire, a central support to the garrisons all over the world, and therefore it seems to me there is no reason why we should be spending this
large sum on experiments in chemical warfare.
It is difficult to say at present what the role of the Army is. Exactly the same difficulty was found when we were discussing the Air Force and the Navy. As far as I can see, it is quite possible for each of those three Forces to have an entirely different potential enemy. As far as I could gather from the Debate, the Air Force has one potential enemy; the Navy certainly has an entirely different one; and whether the Army has one or not, I do not know, but it is probably different from the other two. However, I do not intend to follow up that point, which will come up for discussion again on the question of the united staff.
Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the present position with regard to stores. Are we still drawing to any large extent on old war stores? As long as we do that, it is quite impossible to get at what the Army really costs us. The reply always has been that we could not check over these stores that had been inherited from war time. We are told that some of them are wearing a bit thin, but it is time we knew definitely where we stood with regard to stores and as to the actual cost of the Army. We may be using up all sorts of stores which are quite unaccounted for; because with the new system of accounts we have lost a good deal of the check we had. Is the Secretary of State quite satisfied that we do not spend an excessive amount in the inspection and checking of stores?
According to these returns, we spend something over 5 per cent. of the value of the stores in inspection and checking. Inspection and checking are absolutely necessary, but I want to know whether the question has been looked into to see whether the work is really economical. We certainly spend an enormous sum on inspection and checking; perhaps it would be less if we manufactured more in our own establishments and gave out less work to contractors. I agree, of course, with the point put by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) as to making full use of Woolwich Arsenal. I was rather sorry to hear an hon. Member bring up the old question of the locomotives again. Admittedly that was a bad break; but everyone who has been over Woolwich Arsenal of recent years will
know that it is in an extremely efficient state. I am extremely sorry that the Director of Woolwich Arsenal, Sir Holberry Mensforth, has left the service of the Government. Apparently he was considered so efficient that he has been put at the head of a very large business run by private enterprise. That looks as though Woolwich Arsenal has been run by an extremely efficient man, and I think we all agree that is so. I think we know that Woolwich Arsenal has been efficient, is efficient and can produce at a price that compares favourably with private contractors' prices.
On these benches we are entirely against private enterprise in arms because we know quite well what a thoroughly vicious influence great armament undertakings have on the peace of the world. Therefore the Army should concentrate on getting its stores produced in its own institution under its own control, because that would be much cheaper, and it would cut down a great deal of the cost of inspection which bulks so largely in these Army Estimates.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to the value of esprit de corps in the Army, and I agree with him as to its great value in regard to regiments; it should be carried as far as possible. Whether his suggestion as to promotion confined to four Infantry Battalions is practical or not I do not know, but I hope the Minister, who himself referred to the matter, will do all he can in this direction. It is a very good rule in the Army that, after an officer has been four years on a Staff job, he has to go back to his regiment; but although that is a good rule it has never been carried out, and if you could only get it carried out you would keep touch between the regiment and the Staff, and then the staff would be imbued with some of that esprit de corps which we so often find lacking.
Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite I ask how can we judge of these Estimates unless we know what the role of the Army is going to be? Is our Army to be an Expeditionary Force to be kept up because we are apprehensive of another European war, or is it to be kept simply for the defence of these shores? Are we keeping the Cardwell system
going, and keeping an Expeditionary Force big enough to reinforce our battalions abroad? We ought to be given some idea of what our Army is expected to do. I remember many years ago listening in this House from the Strangers Gallery to a speech made by Lord Haldane which took over three hours to deliver. He explained, first of why he wanted the Army he was asking for, why he wanted so much for the Expeditionary Force, so much for home defence, and so much for the keeping up of the Cardwell system for reinforcing our battalions abroad. It is very difficult to judge whether these Estimates are excessive or not unless we know something about the roles which we expect the British Army to fulfil. I know that raises a much larger question, but how can we give a satisfactory opinion on this point unless it is considered in co-ordination with the Navy and the Air Force?
It would be very interesting if the Secretary of State for War would give us an appreciation of the situation from his point of view; the First Lord of the Admiralty from his point of view; and the Air Minister from his point of view, and then those three points of view could be put before the Prime Minister, if he has not got a Defence Committee, and in that way you should settle, what is the national need from those three points of view and issue to the House a White Paper on this subject before the Estimates are printed, so that we could satisfy ourselves that we were looking at this problem from the point of view of a united Defence Force. I do not want to go further into this question except to say that that would provide us with an efficient Army in war and if we desire economy in peace time we should to well to follow up that policy.
I cannot see why services like the Land and Building Services in this Estimate which occur also in the Air Estimates and the Navy Estimates, cannot be made one business for the three services. The land and buildings dealt with in the Army Estimates cost 24½ per cent, for maintenance. I know the right hon. Gentleman has given a reason for this but I think much could be done in the way of economy by co-ordinating the three services in regard to the administration of land and buildings. With regard to education that is a matter which is
common to all of us, and why cannot that be made a common service for the three? Certainly the Medical Service should be treated in that way. The Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) referred to the Government workshops at Woolwich which had been dispensed with and he asked why they could not be worked by private firms. Surely you can make some arrangement with the mechanical services of all three arms to use large works like Woolwich Arsenal. I am aware that some time ago co-ordination in the defence forces was urged as a result of the recommendation of the Cabinet Committee, and I should be glad to have any information on that point. There are one or two minor things in the White Paper to which I should like to refer. I see a reference to the increase in the number of Regimental Associations by the War Office and I am grateful to the War Minister for having dealt with that point in the White Paper. This is the passage in the White Paper to which I refer:
I would appeal, however, to the various voluntary societies not to relax their energies, and I have noted with gratification the increase in the number of regimental associations which make assistance in obtaining civil employment for their members one of their principal objects.
Many of us who are connected with these associations find it extremely difficult to do what we want in regard to this problem of unemployment. We overlap sometimes with labour and other unemployment societies. When we consider this question again, knowing the Minister's sympathy for this phase of the problem, we will expect that he may be able to help us. We now spend all our money upon the widows and on those who have fallen on bad times. We should have been glad to have been able to make our funds available for unemployment purposes but we have not been able to do this. The next paragraph deals with the training centre at Catterick. If this kind of work can be increased so much the better. In regard to this work, why is there not more co-ordination amongst the various Service? Why cannot the men in the Navy or in the Air Force get the same benefit in this direction as in the Army? That is what I mean by getting greater economy by co-ordinating certain Services of this kind.
I was looking up the other day the White Paper issued for last year in
which the Minister for War took great credit for helping the Army to do its part in assisting the housing problem in this country. May I point out that he has cut that Vote down by £60,000 this year. I did not get a chance last year of complaining about how the military authorities housed their people. I think it is important to spend every penny we have in producing the best fighting men, but when you have great camps like Catterick, and small camps like Arbor-field, and other places where they employ a great many civilians and make no housing arrangements for them, the result is overcrowding, and the agricultural labourers are turned out of their cottages and the villages become overcrowded by these people, because many poor agricultural labourers cannot afford to pay the rent asked for these cottages. I see from the Estimates that they are going to send another 100 horses to Arbor-field for the Remount Depot. That means so many extra employés, and I am told that they are civilians. I want to know what arrangements the War Office will make to see that those civilian employés are not going to add still further to the housing shortage which exists in those parts.
I want to conclude with one other point, which I think is a weak point in the whole of our Army organisation. Not knowing quite what the Army is supposed to do, it is difficult to judge, but at the present moment, with the experience of the late War, our reserves are far too low for an efficient Army. They are really too low even to keep up the Cardwell system and reinforce the battalions and regiments we have abroad, and they are certainly too low if anything like an expeditionary force is expected to be wanted. I see from the White Paper that the Section D men are being dispensed with. That may be an economy. but is it wise to dispense with these Section D men who, after 12 years' service, showed their value both in the South African War and in the late War? Is it not worth while to give them day and keep them on for a few years to strengthen our reserve? If there is no militia, and if there are no Section D reserves, I think we are risking all we can in the way of keeping up the present Army. I suggest that, in order to get efficiency, there ought to be more co-ordination of the policy of all three arms,
that economy can be obtained by amalgamating certain of these services in peace time, and that an attempt should be made to do more to keep up the Army reserves, which are so necessary when the crisis comes, rather than spending too much money on Army manœuvres, which are based on European warfare, when it is not expected that we shall have a force to send to take part in any operations except for the defence of our Empire.

Mr. GILLETT: We have heard a good deal lately in the newspapers and elsewhere of the need for economy, and I am rather surprised that those who have been so exceedingly keen in urging the Government not to spend what is, after all, a small sum of money on sports grounds, did not devote their time and energy to the important question that is brought before the House in the White Paper to-day in connection with the new form of Army Accounts. To my mind, one of the most effective ways, and, in fact, the first step in the direction of getting any real economy and any control over expenditure by the House of Commons, is in the system of accounts that we have laid before us, and the way in which that information is going to be given to the House and to the country. On that account, I look with a good deal of concern and, I confess, disappointment, at the action of the War Office in altering the scheme of accounts that was commenced some four or five years ago. It seems to me that this is much more than merely an Army question, because I believe that, when this new attempt to deal with the accounts was first made, it was very closely watched by other departments, with a view to an alteration in their system of accounts if the Army system should prove successful. To my mind it is all the more to be regretted from that point of view that we are going back upon the attempt that has been made.
I would remind the Committee that the question came up at the close of the War, as the result of the deliberations of the Samuel Committee, and it is rather interesting, in connection with this subject, to find that the chairmen of the two chief Committees concerned in recommending these alterations are gentlemen whose names are before the country to-day as members of the Coal Commission, and that the very Government which
has appointed them to advise us on the coal industry is at this time practically turning down their recommendations in regard to Army finance. The Samuel Committee recommended that, instead of the old system, which, as my right hon. Friend reminded us earlier in the Debate, dates back from the time of Charles I—instead of simply having what are termed cash statements, which, in fact, from the point of view of the ordinary man, may be said to be little else but the ordinary information conveyed by a bank passbook when a clerk has put together the various heads that are actually the same—that, instead of basing the system of Estimates upon accounts of that kind, the accounts should be presented to the House in the form of units; that is to say, that a Member wanting to know exactly the full cost of, say, an educational institution, would be able to find all the particulars together, and also information as to how much it was costing to educate a young man in one of the military colleges. The same principle could be applied to many other Departments.
The first difficulty connected with this proposal was that, instead of its being handed over to the ordinary accountants of the Army, a special staff of qualified accountants was asked to superimpose this system of accounts upon the old system. I quite agree with the Secretary of State for War when he referred to the expense, because, of course, what happened was that practically there were, as I understand, two sets of accountants dealing with two sets of accounts, which, naturally, was an exceedingly expensive system. I think, however, that it was quite possibly sound to start with, because at first the Army Council were not convinced as to whether the new system would be successful, and, therefore, they did not like to give up the old system until the new one had been proved to be working satisfactorily. That being so, for four or five years these two systems have gone on side by side, with the expense which that involved. The result was put in a, to my mind, very interesting Minute of the Public Accounts Committee, which seems to bring before us in a very concise way the advantages of the new system of accounts so far as it had then gone. That was in the Report of the Public Accounts
Committee for the Session 1922. They stated:
Such being the position, we feel that it is not yet possible for this Committee to express a final opinion as to the advantages secured by the change. We do, however, think that in many departments of Army expenditure the new form will, if properly and promptly utilised, prove a valuable and, indeed, essential instrument for control and economy. We would point out, for instance, that it is only by means of the new accounts that we are able to learn that Army expenditure in Mesopotamia in 1920–21 cost £37,000,000; that recruiting cost much more per recruit than in the year before; that regimental tailoring and boot repairing shops were in certain cases much too expensive for the work done; that a student officer at the Staff College, Camberley, costs the country £1,393, including his pay and allowances, and so on, not forgetting the economies shown to have been made in other directions. It is, moreover, only by means of the new accounts that we are able to criticise intelligently the items that make up these figures. Until more complete experience has been gained, there can be no question of departing from the main principles on which the new system is based.
That was the opinion in 1920 of the Public Accounts Committee. Then the right hon. Gentleman himself, feeling that something must be done to come to a conclusion as to what was to be the principle followed by the War Office, appointed the Lawrence Committee. Whatever hon. Members may think of the Committee's recommendations, I think they will agree that it was an exceedingly strong Committee, as the Secretary of State for War himself said, speaking from those benches, and the chairman was peculiarly qualified for dealing with the problem, because not only had he a very distinguished Army experience, but he occupies a distinguished position in the City of London. The recommendation of that Committee was that the Samuel Committee's proposals should be carried out. They said, as a matter of fact—and I think no one disputes it—that the recommendations had never been tried, the reason being the difficulty of delegating control to the unit commands, and it is on that question that I believe the great difference of opinion came, that you would have to delegate control to the officers commanding units.
The difficulty, to my mind, of the Public Accounts Committee when we came up to this point was that it had
really passed from the question of finance to the question of Army administration. We could not have called for the officers to tell us exactly whether they approved of the new system, and whether they thought is was workable, and so forth. We only had certain evidence of the officials placed before us, and I myself, when I agreed to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, did so because I felt that, although I was very much impressed by the evidence of General Lawrence, having no knowledge whatever of the Army, it was quite impossible for me to express an opinion on a purely administrative case of this kind as to whether more powers should be delegated to the officers commanding the various units. It may be that other members of the Committee felt very much the same way that I did myself, and that that is why we felt that it was impossible for us to express any definite opinion on that side of the Lawrence Report. At the same time I must confess that the evidence the Chairman of that Committee gave us certainly seemed to me to be evidence that it was very difficult to get away from, and I believe we also understood that when the Army commanders of units themselves were asked how I they favoured the system of accounts so far as it had gone, the majority of them expressed themselves as being favourable to the system then in existence. However that may be, the point was, were we prepared to delegate still more power to the units, and on that point we have had the recommendation of the Army Council. It is evident that the Secretary of State for War, when in Opposition, thought it would have been possible to do this. If he had that opinion he has altered it, in view of the line that has been taken by the Board. We never connect the War Office with anything that is progressive, and therefore we are sceptical as to whether we had the best evidence that could have been given on the matter.
There are two other extremely important questions that have to be considered. It is not as if the Army exists alone for the control of the men who are in the Army. It is to my mind, amazing when you see these accounts, to find the number of other bodies which are under the control of the Army—schools, hospitals, electrical stations, boot-making factories, bread factories, and various institutions of that kind. Therefore we
come at once to the recommendation of the Samuel Committee that the same principle should be applied in this case. Of course, the fundamental difference that is made in the accounting system is that the system of double entry in bookkeeping means the introduction of that system, and what is still more important, it means the valuation of the stores held by the Army. We were told, for one thing, that it was almost impossible to value them all in the ordinary way, putting it on a cash basis. I myself was amazed to find that the Army had stores valued at something like £100,000,000. Of course this is the key of the new accounting system, because the old system did not bring into account the amount of stores that might be used in one year by the Army. For instance, two or three years ago the actual figure given as the net Army expenditure was £46,600,000. The real cost of the Army was something like £49,900,000, because during the year £2,000,000 to £2,500,000 of stores had been taken from the supplies and used. This is where the fundamental difference comes in, that going back to the old system, unless we have been kept informed of what the stores are, and unless the stores are going to be brought into account, as they appeared in the last accounts published by the Army, we never really know exactly how much the Army may be spending in a year. It may be spending, or seemingly spending less, but when you examine the accounts you may find that a large quantity of stores has been used, and the saving is not necessarily a reduction at all.
Therefore, these two questions had to come before the Public Accounts Committee, and when we consulted General Lawrence upon this subject we had some very interesting evidence from him. He said he considered the way the stores had been treated as absolutely worthless for any financial purpose. He also told us he thought the system of accounting, if it had been carried out to its logical conclusion, would have led to enormous saving. That is an important point we have to bear in mind, that in adopting the recommendations of the Government, we are going against the experience of General Lawrence, and we may be entirely failing to secure economies that we might otherwise have had. Another thing he said—I ought to have mentioned
this when dealing with the question of the units—was that it was argued that even if you did delegate control to unit commanders, there would have been a very small possibility of making savings—only about 10 per cent.—because most of the payments would have been for wages and for stores which were being bought from headquarters, and therefore would not lend themselves largely to economy. This General Lawrence did not agree with either. He thought the amount it would have been possible to economise upon would have been much larger than that. Therefore it was with a good deal of hesitation that I agreed to the proposal of the Committee not to support the Lawrence Committee's Report in its fulness. At any rate the Committee have urged that these other units should be dealt with under what is called the cost system, and that means, of course, that there must be, to my mind, if it is going to be at all effective, a proper valuation of stocks. Hardly anything is said in this Report on the question of valuation. I should like to know very much from the Government what is their policy in regard to the valuation of stocks.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the Auditor-General's Report of 1924, in which he referred to the fact that having had these accounts had certainly been beneficial He said:
The accounts of the Electricity Supply Station show a decrease in the cost per unit, and it is claimed that this is due to continued administrative economies effected as a result of the detailed information available in the accounts.
I very much hope that the Government will tell us definitely of how many of these various units we are to receive full and efficient accounts. The new Estimates which have been placed before us to-day give information about some of the schools very much on the lines of last year. They go so far as to say exactly what the actual cost per head works out at, but when you come to some of the other schools I cannot find that the same principle is being applied. Take some of the other Departments of the War Office, like the bakeries. We were given exact figures last year as to how much it cost to make 100 lbs. of bread, but I cannot see that this year we are given that information. In regard to the electrical department, we had full particulars of the cost, but I cannot find
in the accounts this year that we have been given that information.
The Public Accounts Committee intended that, as far as possible, all these various sub-departments of the War Office should keep their accounts on the lines on which they were kept last year. The Financial Secretary to the War Office shakes his head. I am not talking of the policy of the Government, but of the policy of the Public Accounts Committee. They definitely recommended that, of these various institutions, we might have the fullest accounts placed before us. It does not seem to me that in these Estimates we are being given information on the lines that the Public Accounts Committee have asked for. This is an exceedingly important question, because, however trivial and small these things may be, it is by a knowledge of this kind of thing that the man in business is able to effect economies and to see exactly how the business is going forward and whether it is paying. In many of the things I have mentioned the same principle applies, and it is the only way in which we can satisfactorily judge the accounts. I regret very much that the Army Council have gone back on the Lawrence Committee's Report. If it was impossible for administrative purposes to carry out the whole of the Report, I hope that the Army Council are determined to go on the lines recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, that next year we shall have fuller information about the various Departments, and that we shall find that the stocks are properly valued and brought in as part of the public accounts.

9.0 p.m.

Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: I wish to call attention to the present position of the Royal Army Medical Corps. It is time that the House of Commons realised the deplorable condition to which that corps has been driven because of the fact that it is unable to obtain the necessary recruits to make up the deficiencies that are taking place. The establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps in officers, reduced after the War, is now 900. It was something like 1,000 just before the War. Now, instead of being 900, as the establishment allows, the strength of officers
of the corps at the present time is only 794. It is, therefore, over 100 below the strength it ought to have in peace time. That is due to the fact that almost entirely they are unable to obtain officers to join the corps. The history of the Medical Service of the Army is a long one. The service has gone through great vicissitudes. Until the Crimean War, when public opinion began to make itself felt through the Press, little was known and little was cared as to what happened to the soldiers when they fought overseas. The Crimean War found the Medical Services in a deplorably unsatisfactory condition. The services broke down completely and grave scandal occurred, and the whole nation was roused to wrath. It was only by the greatest effort of the authorities, and the public opinion of the civil population which was aroused, that the matter was brought to a successful issue. Everybody remembers how the ladies rose on that occasion, and how it was largely due to the influence of Florence Nightingale that new blood was brought into the care of the sick and wounded in war and improvements were brought about.
After the Crimean War, there was considerable improvement. The old, obsolete system of regimental officers and regimental hospitals was done away with, and the Royal Army Medical Corps was started. The Corps developed gradually, and at the time of the South African War things were considerably better than they had been before. But even in that war there were grave shortcomings, and it was only after than war, and the inquiry that took place, that the Royal Army Medical Corps was set on a really sound footing. It developed, in the 12 years that elapsed between the end of the South African War and the outbreak of the Great War, into a really splendid body. The growth of the Army Medical Service has been one long struggle against official prejudice and inertia, coupled with economy. To give an example of the difficulties that the Medical Service had in starting its sanitary branch, I might quote from writings by no less an authority than Lord Wolseley, who was perhaps one of the greatest administrative officers the Army has had since the Duke of Wellington. Writing in 1886 he gave his views of sanitation:
The sanitary officer is the creation of recent years, and as a general rule he is a
very useless fuctionary. In future, so long as this fad continues, my recommendation is to leave him at the base, where he will find some useful occupation as a member of the Sanitary Corps.
I do not think that is quite the idea now held by Generals who had commands in the late War. I do not think it would be the view of Lord Haig or Lord Allenbury of the work of sanitation in the recent War. These were the difficulties through which the Royal Army Medical Corps had struggled to the condition it was in after the late War; and I need say nothing to prove how well organized it was before war broke out. It did what was expected of it. No one can say that our soldiers were not properly looked after when sick and when wounded. If there was one breakdown at all in the medical services during the War, it was not in the Royal Army Medical Corps, but in the Indian Medical Service, where public opinion had not been brought to bear and where economy had been over-exerted. The very success of the Royal Army Medical Corps was, indeed, its undoing. It was given a good mark by the public after the War, and then forgotten. Immediately the economies began, the "axe" was applied, and it seems as if the axe not only cut off all the branches, but slipped down and cut the roots as well until the very sustenance of the whole tree was in danger. Ever since it has been slowly dying from lack of proper nutriment.
What are the causes of the present unpopularity—for unpopular it is—of this corps? Its unpopularity is partly due to the fact that the pay, which was fairly satisfactory before the War, has not increased in proportion to the increase in pay of other branches of the Army. The increase of pay in the Army Medical Corps is less in proportion to that of any other branch of the service. For instance, a captain's pay in the Army Medical Corps has been increased by only 74 per cent., whereas the pay of a captain in a line regiment has been increased by 88 per cent.; a major's pay has been increased by 49 per cent., as compared with 97 per cent. of a major in a line regiment, Then, in the matter of retired pay, the increases granted have been grossly inadequate for certain of the ranks, so much so, indeed, that at the present time an officer who leaves the service as a major actually gets less than he
would have got before the War, in spite of the fact that the cost of living is still 75 per cent. above normal. That is one of the chief reasons for the unpopularity of the corps; the pay is not sufficient to snake it attractive compared with other branches of medical service in the country.
There have been other grievances in the matter of allowances to those officers who are serving in India. Some Members of the Committee will remember that at the beginning of last year it became necessary, owing to the Report of the Lee Commission, to increase the pay of all officers of the Italian civil services, especially the pay of married officers, and at the same time it was necessary to give married officers of the Army serving in India extra allowances in order to enable them to live in comfort. But the Army Medical Corps was specially exempted from this extra allowance, although they were serving in exactly the same conditions as other branches of the Army in India. They alone of all the officers have not been receiving the extra grant given to officers of other branches of the Army serving in India. The result has been that whereas it requires 45 new recruits every year to make up the wastage in the Army Medical Corps it has only been able, for the last three years, to get an average of 10, and there is a yearly loss of about 35 officers. In a few years it will be quite impossible to carry on. They are hardly able at the moment to perform those duties which are expected of them, much less the duties which would be expected of them in war. They can only carry on at all at the present time by employing a considerable number of civil medical practitioners in those places where the Army Medical Corps officers should be employed. The result is that the number of officers who have to serve abroad is much larger than it ought to be. Naturally a civil medical practitioner cannot be sent abroad; all the moves have to be done by members of the Army Medical Corps
This shortage acts in a sort of vicious circle. It makes the corps more unpopular because the shorter the numbers the harder it is on those who are left. They have to do far more foreign service, are moved much more, and the senior officers who are left—there are practically no juniors—have to do work which is normally done by junior officers.
It makes them discontented. As the officers of the corps become more and more discontented it acts in such a way as to prevent fresh officers joining. The most efficient recruiting agent any service can have is a contented existing member of that service. The difficulties of this corps have been pointed for at least two years, but up to last October nothing was done to redress the grievances or improve the service. Last October a Committee was appointed by the Cabinet to enquire into the services not only of the Army Medical Corps but of the Navy and the Air Force. That Committee has been sitting; and is still sitting. Various recommendations have been made to it for the improvement of the corps generally; first, in the matter of pay, especially those in the middle ranks, majors and lieutenant-colonels, who suffer most because their expenses are heavier, secondly, for the removal of the grievances to which I have referred, and, thirdly—this point has been pressed over and over again but has always been turned down—the granting of a position on the Army Council to the Director-General of the Medical Service. This is considered to be one of the most important. considerations. As I have said the medical service has always been at a disadvantage compared with other branches.
It is of the utmost importance, if that service is to he maintained, that it should have a distinct and separate voice in the control of Army matters. The Committee will soon be reporting. What it will report we do not know, but when the report is issued there will be an opportunity for the Government to restore this important branch of the Service to popularity and well-being. If they insufficiently appreciate the need a very heavy responsibility will rest upon them. The last emergency found us well prepared, but, should another emergency arise, with an Army Medical Corps reduced in strength, insufficiently prepared and organised—the present Corps will soon be in that condition if things go on as they are going—who can tell what may happen, what grave scandal may occur, and what will be the declaration of the people when they find such a thing happening? I am appealing, not especially to the Secretary for War, because I know that he appreciates what is
happening to the Corps; I am appealing to the whole of the Government, on whom responsibility will rest when the findings of that Committee are made known. I am appealing also to public opinion, because it has always been necessary to have the full backing of public opinion for any improvement in the Corps in the past. I hope that when the time comes something may be clone to restore this great Corps to the condition in which it was before.

Colonel ENGLAND: I also would like to offer congratulations to the Secretary of State for War for the success of his efforts to economise without imparing the efficiency of the fighting forces. A reduction of £2,000,000 without impairing efficiency is no mean effort. I appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman must have had in forcing these reductions from reluctant Departments. I think he probably found the least resistance when he attempted to obtain reductions from the Territorial Army, but not for the reason that was advanced by my colleague on the Liberal Benches this afternoon. The reason that he gave was that they were compelled, because they had no choice but to accept a reduction. I hold that in the Territorial Force it was felt that every effort should be made for economy, and when the Secretary of State forwarded his proposals to the county associations they looked at them probably from a different point of view from that of the Regular soldier. Most of the members of the Territorial Force associations are men who are interested in Army matters, and at the same time are business men and large taxpayers. They looked at the matter from the point of view of a reduction of the burden of taxation on the general body of taxpayers in the country, and I can assure the Secretary of State that it is the intention of members of the county associations to assist him by all means in their power to practise economy, provided there is no loss of efficiency. Speaking as the chairman of a. spending committee of one of the county associations, I can state that my committee fell in with the suggestions that were made for a drastic reduction of the clothing grant. We felt that it was our duty in every way to assist the Minister, by seeing if we could not, without any loss of smartness or logs of any kind, gradually reduce the demands on
the cash required for the replacement, if clothing.
There are many suggestions that one could make for improving the efficiency of the Territorial Army, but, naturally, most of these would mean the provision of more money. We realise that what is wanted now is less money spent and more money saved. There is one question that I would like to press upon the Minister, although it will cost the country something. It is the granting to Territorial soldiers under the age of 26 of separation allowances during the annual training. I know that I shall be met with the statement that the Territorial soldier is on exactly the same plane as the Regular soldier, and that at the age of 26, if he is married, he is entitled to separation allowance. But there is a vast difference between the two. The Regular soldier is not a free agent; he cannot marry "on the strength" just when he thinks fit. On the other hand, the Territorial soldier is a free agent in the matter, and, speaking for the industrial areas, these men marry very young. My experience is that the difficulty is to obtain recruits from the very class that we require, young fellows from 21 to 25 years of age. It is impossible for many of them who are ordinary tradesmen to join the Territorial Army with the knowledge that if they are married and go to the annual training they have no separation allowance and are not able to provide adequately for the maintenance of their wives. I trust that this matter may be considered further, and that the Minister will find it possible to grant marriage allowance to the man who in my opinion fully deserves it. I think he will then find that recruiting, instead of dropping quietly as it has been doing recently, will move up by leaps and bounds.

Captain A. EVANS: It is with a great deal of diffidence that I, a junior officer of the Reserve, venture to intervene in this Debate, but I am rather anxious to deal with one or two points which have not been touched upon by my senior colleagues on this side of the House. The first point relates to promotion. The Secretary of State, in his very lucid statement, told us that the War Office proposed to adhere in future to the old principle of promotion as it affected the ranks of second lieutenant to major, and that the question of appointing officers to
command battalions was to receive the consideration of what I understood to be a selection board. Personally, as far as I am competent to comment on that, I feel that there is great danger in the proposal. One does not require to have been in the Army long to realise there is a good deal of feeling on the question of appointing an officer of another regiment who has not previously served with the battalion he is about to command when that appointment is made known. After all, officers in the War, owing to the lack of supplies of efficient officers in other battalions, were appointed to command strange battalions. The only effect I see of the proposal of the Secretary of State is that perhaps instead of inefficient officers having been appointed in these circumstances, efficient officers might be appointed in future, but during his statement I did venture to interrupt him to inquire as to whether this new programme and this new policy was to affect the Brigade of Guards. I was not quite certain from his reply as to whether it would or would not, and I do hope that when the Financial Secretary comes to wind up the Debate he will deal with that specific point.
I do know that any movement in that direction would be fatal, as far as the Brigade is concerned. As the House well knows, the Brigade of Guards has had certain customs which are peculiar to the Brigade. It has been the practice for many, many years, in fact, it is laid down in King's Regulations, that in no circumstances whatsoever will a formation of Guards be placed under the command of an officer who is not commissioned in the Brigade. I do feel that if it is the intention of the War Office to carry this new policy as far as the Brigade of Guards, it will not add to that splendid esprit de corps, which was so beneficial in the past and which, indeed, was responsible for the Brigade of Guards being considered the corps d'elite by the rest of the Army in the Great War.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, the Brigade would not mind a cavalry officer, would they?

Captain EVANS: I think, in the history of the Brigade of Guards, it was not unknown for a cavalry officer to he transferred in the late War to command a regiment, but that was a very unusual
course, and I venture to think in those circumstances the cavalry officer concerned was transferred in his rank to the Brigade and was not attached for duty to command that regiment.
I should like to say a word concerning the question of the reserve of the regular Army. I was very surprised indeed when listening to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to observe that he did not say one word concerning this most important feature of our Army. In 1922 I ventured to question the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. I questioned him as long ago as that, and he said then that the matter was receiving the careful and close consideration of the Army Council. I ventured to raise this matter again last year, and the reply was then that the financial position of the country did not justify the reorganisation of the reserves. But as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate (Brigadier-General Cockerill) pointed out, the Secretary of State has stated definitely in this House, that the Territorial Army, as far as it was going to affect another war, was only going to take the field as an army or as individual units, and would in no way act as draft finding units for the regular battalions in the field. Of course, we all know that before the War the Militia or Special Reserve acted in this capacity, and it has been suggested from various quarters of the House that the Special Reserve should again be organised for this purpose. That is a suggestion which should receive the most serious consideration of the authorities.
I hope that in the event of their considering that proposal, they will be very careful to find out whether those people who favour the reintroduction of the Special Reserve or Militia force will not insist on their units going out into the field in the event of war as units, because I remember not long ago the Army Committee of the House of Commons received a deputation from representatives of the Militia force, and they used the arguments which have been used in this House on numerous occasions for bringing about the reorganisation of that force in order that it could act as draft-finding units for the Regular Army in the field. When, however, we came to go into the question more carefully we found that,
although those were the arguments they advanced, they were not prepared to allow themselves to be used purely as draft-finding depots in the events of war. I do hope that, if the War Office does consider that proposal, they will be very careful to see that any force that may be formed as a result of their recommendations will be prepared to act purely as a training battalion and draft-finding units. As at present organised, I suppose it is the idea of the War Office that the depots of the various regiments would act not only as draft-finding units but as a training battalion, and I do venture to think that not only is the machinery of the depots of the infantry of the line totally incapable of dealing with the large number of men who would be called to the colours on mobilisation, but the. staff and the machinery which the War Office would call upon in that way would not be capable of meeting the need of the moment.
I was very interested indeed in listening to the speech of the late Under-Secretary for War the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Attlee) when he suggested that there was a large field for economy in the reorganisation of depots of the line regiments of the Army at the present time. That is a consideration which is worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. After all, you have, on the one hand, the example of the cavalry arm of the service which, I believe I am correct in stating, has only two depots in the whole of the country at the present time: and, on the other hand, you have the example of the depot of the Brigade of Guards which, in the late War, supplied the whole of the Guards division with reinforcements, besides the reserve battalions stationed at various places. As at present constituted the majority of line regiments have a depot for two battalions and I feel very strongly that, for instance, in Wales, if you could establish two depots or even one at a central place like say, Brecon, you would thereby cut down a lot of unnecessary expense and be able to employ officers and other ranks who are at present employed at the various depots in other more useful capacities and thereby effect an economy which would in no way militate against the efficiency of the Army.
The Secretary of State, I was very pleased to notice, told us this afternoon
that the Government had decided to re-institute the grant of £15,000 for the Territorial Cadet Force and, in doing so, he explained in his memorandum that the social value of the cadet movement and its importance as a source of recruiting for the Territorial Army had been recognised by the payment of the grant for the current year. I was very sorry he did not furnish us with any figures in support of that view, and I do hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us what percentage of Territorial Army enlistments are of men or boys who have previously served in the cadet force. As to its being a movement of social value, personally, I am entirely in agreement with that, but I doubt very much indeed, as a late cadet Lieutenant-Colonel myself, the value of this movement from the point of view of recruiting for the Territorial Army. I feel that, in these times, when the utmost financial control is vitally necessary in view of that economy which is equally necessary for our well-being, even sums of £15,000 should be closely watched and gone into before they are voted by this House.

Mr. STEPHEN: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down into the various technical matters with which he has dealt, or to discuss with him the position in regard to commands in the Guards, and subjects of that kind. I wish to raise the question of the treatment by the War Office of men who have incurred disability while on service. One of my constituents recently put his own case before me, and I take it as typical of what is going on with regard to the administration generally in this respect. This young man joined the Army in 1921, served for two years in India, and was then sent to Egypt where he contracted illness. After being four months in hospital in Egypt he was transferred to Netley Hospital, and at the end of two months in that institution the medical officer decided he would not be fit for service again, and he was discharged. His illness was tuberculosis. Naturally, he thought, he would be eligible for a pension, but his application was refused. I daresay most hon. Members have had cases of this kind brought before them in connection with the Ministry of Pensions, where men have contracted illnesses during War service, and we have often wondered why the
Pensions Ministry did not act more generously towards such men.
Here we have a case under the administration of the War Office which seems to disclose an even more callous attitude. This man joined as A1. There was nothing to show that he had any weakness. He served for three years in the Army. He has now been turned out on account of illness and has been refused any gratuity or any pension. I took the matter up with the War Office, and I received a communication which stated:
Tuberculosis is, as you know, a common disease of civil life. Its incidence is greater in civil life than in the Army, and in the absence of any special conditions of strain or exposure we cannot regard military service as being the cause of this disease. In the particular case, it is admitted that the first signs of the disease appeared during his military service, but there is no evidence that he suffered any special strain or exposure during his service in the Army, and this being so, I regret we cannot consider his disability as having been caused by his service.
I do not think there is a Member in this Committee who would say that a man after serving in the Army should be treated in this fashion. It is true that in civil life men become victims of tuberculosis, very often as a result of the wretched housing conditions under which so many civilians have to live, but the War Office having had this man under its care and in its charge—a man who came to them thoroughly fit—has no right to say to him, "We do not know where you got tuberculosis; you may have been out in the rain, or under unhealthy climatic conditions, but we have not any particular notice that you have undergone any special exposure or special strain." I think it is putting too much strain on common sense if the War Office is to act in that way. I hope the Minister will go into this particular case again and will also consider the whole position in regard to disabilities incurred while on service. The War Office should take full responsibility for such disabilities. When a man has served in the Army they should see that when he returns to civil life, he is placed in a position to have some little comfort and consideration. To me it is terrible that a man after lying in hospital for all those months should be sent back to his parents, who are poor people, and who will now have to keep him, the War Office an effect saying, "We have got out of
you all we can get, and you are of no more use to us." I hope more generous treatment will be extended to the private soldier than is indicated by this case which I take to be typical of many other cases.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: I only wish to intervene in this Debate to call attention to some of the anomalies which exist in connection with the education of cadets at the Royal Military College and the Royal Military Academy. My experience as an old commanding officer is that many of these cadets arrive in their regiments unequipped to carry out the ordinary duties which they are first called upon to undertake. A great deal of attention is paid at Sandhurst and at Woolwich to the instruction of these cadets in order to fit them for their military career. They are subjected to discipline, and I am bound to say their instructors are of such high character as to be able to influence these lads and to build up character in a way which I think cannot be equalled in any other kind of educational establishment in this country. A great deal of the training, however, consists of spade-work. As an old soldier, I would like to pay my tribute to the importance of spade-work of this kind.
I believe no soldier can be efficient unless he has been through the mill, but speaking as a commanding officer, and also as a parent, who has seen his son through this excellent course of education at Sandhurst, I believe there is something lacking in the education of these cadets—something which is necessary in order to ensure that they are efficient and can be made use of when they arrive at the regiments to which they are posted. Recently the commanding officer of a very distinguished line battalion told me that, cadets arrived in the regiment with little or no knowledge of clerical work, and they suddenly found themselves confronted with a problem for which they were not equipped. They were placed in charge of some simple account in the regiment, some sports club, it may be, some corporals' room, a library, or even a sub. account in the officers' or the sergeants' mess, or any other of the regimental institutions, and these young officers were totally incapable of keeping the simplest form of account.
It may seem a curious thing to state, but book-keeping is an essential part of a young officer's duty in the Army to-day, but apparently, in the schools and colleges where these young boys have been educated, the ordinary problem of adding up figures and keeping that form of account which is called double entry is entirely neglected, and commanding officers have found that these cadets, who arrive from Sandhurst in many ways fully qualified to occupy the positions to which they have been called, are totally incapable of keeping any form of accounts, however simple. I suggest that the Commandants of these two institutions, the Royal Academy at Woolwich and the Royal College at Sandhurst, should employ the staff which they have at their disposal to instruct these cadets in the simple methods of keeping books accurately, neatly, and correctly. I will go as far as to say that, if that were not possible, it would surely be possible to ensure that none of these young fellows should be admitted into either Woolwich or Sandhurst until they have shown a proficiency in this particular form of simple arithmetic. There are other things which, I feel sure, could be taught at Sandhurst and Woolwich, which would be extremely useful to these young officers when they join their regiments, in which it is not always possible for a commanding officer to instruct his young officers: the opportunities may not occur.
We will take the ordinary duty of an orderly officer, which these officers will have to perform in a very few weeks after joining. They are expected at an early hour in the morning to inspect the rations which are to be issued to the regiment, and they have had no previous instruction as to how to judge the quality of those rations. No previous instruction has ever been given to them as to the conditions which govern the contracts for supplying these important articles for the men's daily comfort. They are not instructed, for instance, in any way as to what constitutes good or bad cooking of these various articles, and it is part of their daily duty to go round and inspect the food before it is cooked and after it is cooked, and to express an opinion upon it. I am strongly of opinion that certainly at Sandhurst, and, I believe, also at Woolwich, it would be quite possible for these
cadets to be instructed, at Aldershot or at Woolwich, without any extra cost to the public, so that these young officers should arrive in their regiments with a knowledge of the ordinary duties which they have to perform and a knowledge of the articles which they have to examine and upon which they have to report. As knowledge is power, they would have an added influence, and their men would respect them far more, to the extent that they showed an interest in their men s welfare and in the things that are supplied for their comfort and convenience.
I could go through a great many other of their ordinary duties, but I do not wish to exhaust the patience of the Committee. There are all sorts of administrative duties which these young officers are called upon to perform, into which they ought to have some insight before they leave Sandhurst or Woolwich, where they have been taught many other interesting things, but not half so useful. May I turn for a moment to horse management? The cadet is taught to ride, and when he leaves Sandhurst or Woolwich he is something of a horseman. He may not be a perfect horseman, but he knows something about it. He knows nothing, however, about horse management, which is the most important part of his duties as an officer; and the same remark applies to his knowledge of mechanical transport, which is of growing importance in the Army. He has very little, if any, instruction in that important matter. Lastly, these young officers are expected to teach, yet, as far as I know, they have never been taught, and whatever form of instruction they have to give, surely it is most important that during their college career they should be taught by skilled instructors how to teach their men, and in that way add to their efficiency as soldiers.

Mr. LAWSON: I rise to draw attention to that part of the Vote which deals with the education and training of the men in the Army. It is good to know that considerable attention is now being paid to the educational side of the men's life in the Army, and, in my own experience, I was pleased to find that the Army is doing some very useful work in enlarging the men's minds during their period of service. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) drew attention to the fact that there had been some reductions in
connection with the vocational training of the men, training which goes on chiefly at Hounslow and Catterick, but I wish to draw attention particularly to what my right hon. Friend termed the lack of development in the training at Catterick. I wonder if the soldier Members of this House know the splendid experiment that has been carried on for the training of men in the last year of their service, an experiment which has proved absolutely successful, which has given men a new start in life, which has placed them upon the land, in Australia particularly, and of which the Australian Government have spoken so highly that they have actually asked us to send as many as we can of these men who have been trained at Catterick.
I take it the Government want no better tribute to the work that is being done in that part of the Army's operations. May I draw attention to the fact that quite recently a report has been issued to the Overseas Committee, one of the Government representatives having been out to see the work the Catterick men are doing in Australia. The Labour Under-Secretary for War and I went to Catterick to see this work for ourselves, and we were really amazed to find not only that this work was being done and its wonderful promise, but that the country knows so little about what is being done in this particular part of the Army's operations. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has been sufficiently interested in the men's training in the last six or nine months of their service when they are trained for civilian life. Does he go to Hounslow and Catterick to see what they are doing there? If I may say so, I regret to say I do not think there has been that interest in the work there ought to he in the Departments.
10.0 P.M.
Last year I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the danger of the extension of the training ground at Catterick interfering with the work of the men being trained for carpentering, shoemaking and work on the land. In some cases they bring their wives there for the last few months of the service. Twenty families went out during the term of the Labour Government, 20 families went out last year, and 20 families, I understand, have gone out this year. It has been a useful experiment, and I asked the right hon. Gentle-
man what the Department was going to do to extend this work. I make no secret of it that it was the Labour Government's intention to extend this very useful work. As a matter of fact, we had intended, and it was well known at the War Office, that Gretna was to be the centre of this great development, and so I asked the right hon. Gentleman if there was going to be any danger of the extension of the training ground at Catterick interfering with the development of this work. He told me there was no danger in that respect at all. He said that, with regard to Catterick, I might make my mind easy; they had no intention of reducing the work there, and he went on to pay a very fine tribute to the work. But there are a few indications as to what has been taking place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked the right hon. Gentleman a question. He is a member of the Overseas Committee which has at its disposal something like £3,000,000, set apart by an Act of Parliament for the purpose of putting men upon the land, and so he asked this question of the right hon. Gentleman:
Is the War Office aware of the excellent reports that are now coming from Western Australia, from the group settlements there, of the men who have been trained at this agricultural camp, and of the satisfaction there is among all who have gone, and is the Department prepared to consider extending the work that is done so usefully at Catterick?
The Financial Secretary to the War Office replied:
The Department is fully aware of the appreciative reports received from the countries to which the men have gone.
Later on I asked the right hon. Gentleman
whether the agricultural training at Catterick Camp has been curtailed during the past 12 months or whether it is intended to limit it in the near future? 
The right hon. Gentleman answered:
The development of the camp during the past 12 months has reduced the amount of arable land available for agricultural training. There is no intention of reducing it further at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1926; col. 2082, Vol. 192.]
I gather from the Memorandum that has been issued that the real cause
of the trouble now is put on financial grounds:
The demand for vacancies in agricultural training classes at the Army Vocational Training Centre at Catterick has increased, and the number which can be trained in this and other branches of vocational training is only limited by financial considerations.
I suggest that that is not an adequate answer. As a matter of fact, what happens? The arable land upon which men have been trained is producing cereals and crops which are being sold at the market price. I know the right hon. Gentleman may question it, but I venture to say the whole scheme at Catterick is paying 20s. in the£ and is really no financial burden. The land is now taken over by the Army and producing nothing, and then the right hon. Gentleman wants to say that because of financial considerations they cannot continue to develop this work. I say that answer is not good enough in the face of such a very fine experiment. There are other reasons, and what the Government have got to understand is that the right hon. Gentleman has got to give consideration to the civilian side of a man's life, to the citizenship side of the soldier, to his training side, so that he will have an opportunity of being replaced in civil life, instead of being a representative of that old blind-alley occupation which brings the Army into odium with civilians.
There are those who say, and I believe they say it truly, that if we can get a practical scheme for training men, putting them upon the land, and sending them into civilian life either in this country, or one of the colonies—if, they say, "we could make sure that there was a successful scheme of this description, we would support it." Well, here you have a scheme which has proved a success. It is really a great experiment, and the nucleus of a great scheme in which the Army, Navy and Air Force can co-operate. I fail to understand how a. great scheme of this description, which has done such wonderful work, which has already sent 60 families out of the country who are now doing good work in Australia and who have been reported upon most eloquently by the British representatives, should not receive all the support necessary. I really would ask hon. Members on the opposite side of the House how it is that this scheme has not been developed during the past year? I am
sorry to say that the intention seems to be to bring it altogether down. Here you have the 60 heads of families, who would have been unemployed, who probably now would have been getting unemployment benefit, who are now doing useful work. I really think I ought to read to the Committee this short extract from the report of the British Government representative who visited these men in Australia, and who said:
It was one of the pleasantest experiences of my life to see this whole body of men and women, so keen on their new life, and so eager to describe their happy experiences, that they all spoke at once, and behaved like a crowd of excited schoolchildren who could not find words to describe their new life.
If the scheme can do that for men and their families, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should sec to it that the various schemes are working hand in hand, and that the Government should take into consideration in all its Departments these training schemes, for I venture to say that these successful experiments can give one hope of their application to the general problem of unemployment. They may lead to the establishment of men in this, or other of our countries. That would be to the good, and a proposal that should appeal to Members in all quarters of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) reminds me that the training is for the purpose of training men as skilled craftsmen. That is really what is being done. I would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be possible for some hon. Members opposite to go either to Catterick, or by the use of films depicting the work know what is being done, and so be ready to help in the coming year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some hope in relation to this particular scheme, for we must see to it in the future that the old blind-alley occupations finish, and that Army men are given a decent chance when they leave the Army to become good citizens.

Captain D'ARCY HALL: There are few points that could be raised to-night that have not already been mentioned in the course of Debate. But there was one point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and that was the reduction of the cavalry of the British
Army at the present moment. I am a cavalry soldier, and, naturally, hold a brief for my old corps. I should like to mention that I was fortunate enough to serve with the cavalry from the first day to the last in the War. I think I have some knowledge of the cavalry in the front line, and I have none at all about the staff work behind. My experience was that the cavalry was of the very greatest use on two occasions. The first occasion was during the first fortnight of the War. We had one cavalry division and one independent brigade—one of the finest of brigades. I can assure hon. Members that there was not nearly sufficient cavalry for our needs. We were requested to do jobs that really required double the number of men. Passing on to 1915 –16–17, as cavalry, I am quite ready to agree with some of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. Some hon. Member mentioned that the cavalry horses had 40 pounds of oats per horse per day. That was subsequently cut down to 14 pounds and then to nine pounds.
The other occasion in which the cavalry played a great part was in March, 1918, when the Germans broke through our line. I happened then to be serving on the extreme southern extremity of the line, and the cavalry had to fill up the gaps as quickly as they could till the French came up. I am quite prepared to say that no number of troops, with the best will in the world, except the cavalry could have done what was then done. At that time the roads were congested with retreating guns, transport, and all the rest of it, which could not get through, and the only people who could move rapidly across country was the cavalry division. Only the cavalry could have got through; others could not do that job. Hon. Members who think there ought to be a reduction of cavalry must remember that we require our strength in cavalry at the commencement of a war; we do not require cavalry very much in the middle of a war, I agree; but we do require them again at the end of a war; and for that reason, if for other reason, I would plead with the Secretary of State to ask for the earnest consideration of his military advisers to this point before it is decided to reduce the number of the cavalry.
There is one thing on which I am certain we could economise. As I have said before, I was not on the Staff, and so I
can be quite candid in criticising the Staff on this occasion. I have carefully read through the Army Estimates, but being a young Member of this House I am afraid I do not know my way through them from beginning to end as well as other Members. As far as I can make out, however, there are at present 700 Staff Officers in England—700 out of a total of 5,600. I make out that we have one Staff Officer for every nine Regimental Officers, that is, that in a battalion we have one Staff Officer to every 155 men, and according to that reckoning we have 4½ Staff Officers for every battalion. I really cannot see that that very large number is necessary. The half man might be sufficient. As to the Staff abroad. I was in Egypt this winter, and on making inquiries I found that the number of the Staff in the Near East—or in Cairo, rather—was, in my opinion, very greatly in excess of the number required. There are more Staff Officers in Cairo at the moment than we require for an Infantry Division, and there is not nearly an Infantry Division in Egypt. If the Secretary of State desires to make economies I appeal to him first of all to economise here at home in the War Office—I know it is difficult, but I am sure it could be done—and, secondly, to make economies abroad in Egypt and other countries in which British troops are stationed.

Mr. KELLY: I am not going to deal with the cavalry question, which seems to have troubled a great many Members during this Debate. I wish to refer to a speech early in the afternoon from the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward). He gave us a description of the machine gun and of the machine gunner. He told us the machine gun was worth about £20—I am not quite sure where he got his figure—and that the machine gunner was worth about £5,000. I hope that that estimate will be noted in the country, and I hope it will be noted, too, by the Government, and that better treatment will be meted out to the men who, are in our service considering the value that has been put on them. Another point he referred to was certain work done at Woolwich Arsenal. He said the House had to find money to make up the loss consequent upon the workpeople at Woolwich Arsenal being engaged upon other
than armament work. I hoped that before he finished he would have told us the class of work at which Woolwich Arsenal failed and for which the House had to find money. If he was referring to the locomotives, I hope the. Minister will defend those who are not here to speak for themselves, and will inform the House and the country that there was not the great loss upon that work that the country believes there was, and that these particular engines are in use, and in satisfactory use, at the present time. I hope we shall have figures given to us of the cost, of what is assumed to be the loss, and of the value of the work that was put into those engines.
I would also like to ask why it is that at this time we find at Woolwich Arsenal we are allowing work to stand idle on the 6-in. guns, upon which there has been a great expenditure of money up to the present moment, and which are left standing there knowing full well that that is not economy, but is simply holding the work up so that money will not be spent before the 31st of this month. That is not economy when it means discharging men and placing them on the unemployment fund. I hope we shall be told something about Feltham, and why the War Department has sent the military into Feltham in such great numbers to take the place of civilian workers, thus causing the dispute in that particular establishment. Surely the War Department, if it was a matter of training more men, could have done it by sending them into the heavy repair depot at Feltham.
Another question is in regard to Didcot. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the placing of stores at Didcot is satisfactory to the War Department, and also what steps are being taken to provide housing accommodation for the people transferred from Woolwich to work in the stores at Didcot. It seems stupid that you should remove one store from Woolwich to Didcot, and make no provision for the people who have to go there, and you find them travelling between those two places week after week in order to engage in their work. Some of them have to live in Oxford already because the War Office has not provided accommodation before despatching these men to that part of the country.
I also want to know why the War Department still refuse to agree to the granting of an annual holiday with pay to the men in their service. Something like 1,500,000 workpeople have been granted annual holiday with pay by private employers, but here we find the War Department refusing to come into line with private employers. It would not cost very much, and I hope we shall hear from the War Minister that the War Office are hopeful of granting this concession to the men in their service. If that is done, I am sure it. will be greatly appreciated by the men employed at. Woolwich, Enfield and other War Office establishments, and the men will be able to give a better service to the nation. With regard to the £2,000,000 which have been saved on the War Office, Estimates, about which the Secretary for War feels so proud, I am afraid I cannot congratulate him upon that saving, because I am not at all sure that that is the best thing he could have done. If you look round at the various depots and departments, you will find many means by which economy could be effected, and you could arrange that those so lowly paid in the service could be better paid even with greater economy in their departments.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have had a very interesting Debate, which has ranged over an unusually large number of subjects, and I have been given enough material, if I were to reply to every question in anything like detail, to keep the Committee for a longer period than the Committee would willingly remain. I rather fancy that that is a tribute to the form in which the Estimates are presented this year, which has apparently enabled hon. Members to dig out from the pages of the Estimates all these questions, and to speak with an amount of information upon the subjects they have raised which has been sadly lacking in previous years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), my predecessor, opened the Debate with copious quotations judiciously extracted from a. former volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he was kind enough to add to his quotations at my request. When he was dealing with the form of the Estimates, he, of course, quoted the fact that I had urged him to come to a decision upon this subject. I asked him to add
to those quotations, and he pointed out that what I had said, at the moment when I was speaking two years ago, vas that there were two systems of accounts running in the War Office—there was the so-called unit system or cost accounting system, and there was the Vote-head system.
These two systems were quite separate systems, quite different and incompatible with each other. They were run side by side in the War Office, and, because they brought out totally different results, there was a still further section in the Finance Branch of the War Office engaged in nothing else but reconciling these two irreconcilable systems. Whatever happened, I felt that it was utterly and absolutely impossible to justify the continuance of that process, which certainly involved a great expenditure for no useful purpose. Being much attracted, and I am going to say so, by the unit or cost accounting system, after the experience I had had in the Ministry of Munitions, where the cost accounting system undoubtedly saved enormous sums of money in the manufacture of the various articles that were required in the War—being much enamoured of that, I said, "No, I will not scrap the cost accounting system; we will have it thoroughly inquired into by the strongest committee that I can design," and, as Secretary of State for War, I appointed the Lawrence Committee; and I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else takes me to task and asks me, when I was in favour of it, and when I set up a committee which finally reported in favour of it, why on earth I apparently changed my mind, and—as the right hon. Gentleman said, wrongly—scrapped the system and apparently made a. complete volte-face. Let me tell hon. Members exactly—

Mr. WALSH: I did not say the right hon. Gentleman scrapped the system; I said he scrapped the very thing he most strongly recommended to me, namely, that the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee should be put into force. That is the point.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and I still do not understand the difference. But let me pass on and say exactly what happened. I have not scrapped Cost Accounting. I have
scrapped the system of accounting which depends upon unit accounting. Cost accounting is extremely useful for factory work or for any work, especially repetition work, where you compare like with like, but it is utterly misleading to think you can compare the cost of one battalion with another battalion—one battalion probably in camp and another in barracks. It is utterly impossible to imagine that you are going to gain the slightest value from a comparison of that sort. Where you are coming to hospitals, electric light undertakings and productive undertakings, it is extremely important to have cost accounts, and I am retaining cost accounts for all the productive energies of the War Office. What I am doing is to scrap it for the combatant units because it is utterly useless.
Let me give another instance to show how useless it is. What you want cost accounting for is to check whether business is carried on in an economical fashion and whether one is better than another—whether the system developed by one unit is better than the system developed by another, so that you can choose the best and put it in force over the whole area of activity. But in the Army nearly 90 per cent, of the expenditure is not in the control of the officer commanding the unit. Ninety per cent. of the expenditure is on housing, rent and rates, travelling, food, and pay. None of these are within the discretion of the officer commanding the unit. The most that he has discretion over is a matter of 10 per cent. of the expenditure, and I have to consider whether there is a possibility of saving on that 10 per cent. a sufficient sum to enable the economies to equal the cost of putting the system in operation. The cost, of the limited system which I am continuing, that is, the costing of the productive units, will be £100,000 a year. In reducing it to £100,000 I am saving £200,000 a year, because the cost until a few months ago was at the rate of £300,000. But the Lawrence Report itself admits that the system was never really in operation at all. It was only coming up to the point when perhaps it would be in operation. In order to put it into operation an additional £100,000 a year would have been required, so what we have to compare now is the £100,000 which it is going to cost to the produc-
tive units with what it would have cost if the Lawrence Report was put into operation, namely, £400,000 a year, so that I am saving £300,000.

Mr. LAWSON: The Lawrence Committee definitely recommended that the cost accounting system should be applied right through.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am perfectly aware of that. I do not want to run away from it. I differ from the Lawrence Committee, and the hon. Member is entitled to say so. The Lawrence Committee advised that it should be brought down to the unit. I have come to the conclusion, after taking very careful advice on the subject, that it is not worth while bringing it down to the unit from a monetary point of view at a cost of £300,000 a year in order to get problematic savings of 10 per cent. of the expenditure. I am continuing it at a cost of £100,000 a year on the productive units. This is the trouble the Public Accounts Committee felt. They could not advise that it should be brought into operation. The hon. Member opposite had the same difficulty. I think he was on the Public Accounts Committee. He could not say that it would work administratively. He could not say you could entrust to the commander of a unit the full financial responsibility, and that is the difference.
If I could have done it, I would have done it, because the same attraction as the hon. Members see, I see. I want to give every sort of authority and responsibility to the commander of the unit. I do not want to turn him into an accountant. He has something else to do. He has to train the troops. If you are not careful, you will turn them into accountants, and that is not their business. Their primary business is to train troops. That is what they arc there for. I have not the slightest doubt, sorry as I am that the opportunity for saving cannot be given to the unit, that the decision we have come to is the right decision. Nevertheless, I am not going to despair of making it worth while for the unit to save anything that can be saved in that 10 per cent. I am now having examination made of the question of extending to the unit block grants or lump sum grants in respect of more than is already extended to them. They have already the right
in certain circumstances not to spend on one thing but to spend on another at their choice, if they can save. I am trying to extend that so that they may be able, if they can save in that 10 per cent., to have a certain proportion of the saving, perhaps one-fourth, for their regimental funds, so long as they present to the State three-quarters of the saving. I believe that is the way towards economy, to make it worth the while of the units to save, so that they can get something out of it.
There was one further point mentioned, and that was the valuation of stores. That only shows how incomplete is the system, after six years of trial, of the so-called cost accounting system, that there was no valuation of the stores. They never could have definitely debited any unit with its expenditure, because there was no valuation of the stores whatever. We never have had the actual figures. The figures that have been presented to this House during the last four or five years have had a large number of conjectural factors in them. There has been no absolute figure given. There has been a conjectural valuation of this or that item consumed by the unit, based, of course, honestly on the best advice that the Departments could give, but not an actual figure such as is valuable if cost accounting is to be carried out.
May I give one item to illustrate my point, that of clothing stores. I went before the Public Accounts Committee myself. I had heard. it said that the clothing stores were worth £25,000,000. I was not in a position at the moment to query that, but when I got back to the office I gave orders that telegraphic instructions must be issued all over the world wherever the Army units were, that a valuation of the clothing stores should take place, so that we should know exactly what they were. What were they? Their value was not £25,000,000 but £5,900,000, or one-fifth of the sort of case that has been built up by the advocates of cost accounting. I am sorry that we cannot work it in to the system of administration of the Army. If we were a commercial firm with a large number of shops all over the country, it would be very easy to have each unit costed, but the units of the army differ one from the other. It is not a profit on sales that is the test of efficiency in the Army, but the training that is given in
the units, and that cannot be decided by monetary values.
The next attack—friendly, as I would expect from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), my predecessor at the War Office—was on the question of vocational training, and he has been very ably supported by hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Mr. WALSH: It was a complaint more in sorrow than in anger.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should hate to see my right hon. Friend sorrowful. His face belies him. If it was sorrow, I am glad that it was not anger. He does me the great honour of quoting me, but he used discretion in the quotation. Referring to vocational training, I said to him:
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will arrange with the trade unions that the training these men receive while in the Army shall count. If these men are to be trained, only to find out afterwards that they cannot join trade unions, it would not be fair to the men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, as he has special means of doing so, will take steps to got trade union recognition for these men."—[OFFEICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2631, Vol. 170.]
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken any steps, but I do know that he has not been successful.

Mr. WALSH: I am not now the physician.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman must not run away like that. At the time I was speaking he was sitting on this bench, and I was sitting on the bench opposite where he is now sitting, and I was asking him, when he was in a position of honour and responsibility, to see that the training he, gave these men while in the Army should he treated by the trade unions as training which would help them to join the unions and get work in civil life. I hope now that he has perhaps more time and less responsibility he will be able to succeed. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the receipts from the labour of these men. I happen to have in my hand the Army Accounts for 1923–24, the time when he was responsible, and under the head Catterick—

Mr. WALSH: I was not responsible for the period to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been acquainted with the figures referring to a period just before he was in office. I would not dream of commending or condemning it on the ground that it was a paying proposition. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a paying proposition, and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) who was Financial Secretary to the War Office at that time, said it paid 20s. in the £ What are the facts? The facts are that the gross costs were £22,000. The proceeds of the workshop manufactures were £441; farm produce and the increase in value of stock £3,004, a total of £3,445. The sum received for fees and rents and grazing was £731; so that the total net cost was £17,979, or at the rate of 12s. 3d. per student per day. I am not saying that it was not worth it; my argument is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Financial Secretary have forgotten all about it, and they come down and ask this Committee to approve the proposition not because it is worth it but because it pays. It is not true.

Mr. LAWSON: It is not quite true that I based the whole case on that ground at all. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we spent two days there. We went into the books on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman can produce what he likes about 1923–24, and the particular valuations and the method they have. We say that the concern was paying 20s. in the £ and was costing the War Office nothing.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is most unfortunate that in one breath right hon. and hon. Members opposite are praising the cost accountants and saying that they want us to continue them, and in another breath are criticising them. These are figures got out by the cost accountants. I cannot say that any one of these figures is inaccurate. It is all very well for the late Financial Secretary to say that he went into the books on the spot. I do not know what are his qualifications as an accountant. This is a very expensive corps. It was costing £300,000 a year, and these are the figures that they produce.
If the hon. Member wants to look at them, he can do so. Another point of
the hon. Member was that we were starving it, that we appeared to be unsympathetic, and that he was afraid we were going to shut it down. What are the facts? Hon. Members opposite are singularly bad in their memory again. In 1922–23 the cost was 17s. 8d. per day for an average of 54 students. In the next year, the year to which I have been referring, the cost was 12s. 3d. for 82 students. To-day there are 250 students. That does not sound like shutting it down. On the contrary, I believe that it ought to be extended, that it could be extended, and I want to extend it; hut, again, financial considerations do come in.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) ought to remember that this does cost a great deal of money. In his time it was costing 12s. 3d. per day per student. I do not say it is not worth it, but it is a large sum of money. I have to choose between one object of expenditure and another. I think that we owe a duty to those who come into the Army, to try to secure for them, not unskilled work afterwards, but work which is suitable to their skill, and that we ought to give them every opportunity to acquire skill. I wish that were more recognised in practice on the Labour Benches. I wish that we could have—I have asked for it before—real co-operation with the trade union movement, so that these men, not merely those who go abroad to the Colonies, although that is good, but those who learn brick-making, boot-making, 'and so on, should be welcomed into the trade unions and should be helped in their future life. I have tried many times. The right hon. Gentleman must not laugh.

Mr. WALSH: There is no prohibition against laughing, is there?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Sometimes it is just, and sometimes unjust.

Mr. WALSH: The right hon. Gentleman has now been Secretary for War for several years. Whenever has his Department made a real attempt to get into touch with the trade unions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman can inquire, if he chooses. I have endeavoured to get the assistance of the trade union movement for the Supplementary Reserve, and,
singularly, there has been not only no attempt to assist, but there has been an actual attempt to block it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman's followers are cheering that statement.

Mr. ATTLEE: Surely the trouble about the Supplementary Reserve was entirely due to the right hon. Gentleman's clumsy handling of die whole matter.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a little unfortunate again. Memories are so short. It was commenced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince, and I succeeded to the endeavours that he had made.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that, as a matter of fact, the whole matter was settled after my right hon. Friend had given up office

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is obviously impossible to debate it at this moment. What I said was actually accurate. It was started by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince. I have a great number of other questions to deal with, but I do want to refer to some of them. As far as the land at Catterick is concerned, the acreage I referred to the other day—I forget the exact number—has had to be taken in for the training area, but I do not mean the vocational training to be scrapped. Hon. Members opposite should remember what I am saying. I do not mean it to be scrapped and I will do my level best to see that it is not hurt or reduced by any land having been taken for training. If we cannot get it there we must try and get it somewhere else. I do not mean the vocational training to be scrapped or interfered with. I do not mean we may not change the form slightly in order to put another in its place, for I have got to accommodate myself, naturally, to circumstances, but I do not mean it to be materially interfered with.
As regards Woolwich the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) very naturally raised this question. It is a very serious thing for orders to have to be withdrawn or postponed, and that the effect should be that a large number of men in the course of this year will lose employment at Woolwich. The hon. Member asked whether the whole of the loss was being thrown on Woolwich,
and why Woolwich should not be fully employed and the private firms who also make munitions should not suffer the loss rather than Woolwich. The proportions are these. The orders that are going to be given this year—I give these figures, but they are still provisional, and they cannot be final for the moment, but are the nearest I can give—will be to the Ordnance Factories £1,197,000 worth of orders, and to the trade outside Woolwich, £646,000, or something like two-thirds to Woolwich and one-third outside. The hon. Member may say, "Why do not you give the lot to Woolwich, because Woolwich is in some respects cheaper and does its work just as well."
Let me at once admit that in some respects Woolwich is cheaper and does its work just as well. It is not because it is dearer or because it cannot do the work that I am bound to give work outside Woolwich. I am bound to keep in existence alternative sources of supply. Supposing there were any large demand, either for small arms or other munitions, it would be positively unsafe to rely solely on the production of Woolwich. Woolwich, to start with, is situated in an area which might easily be-put right out of action by an Air Force. Apart from that altogether, unless I can put reasonable orders with the trade, they will not keep their munitions machinery in order and going. It may be said that an alternative is to pay them a subsidy per annum in order to keep the machinery, but that is no good, because I should not be keeping the skilled labour attached to these munition works, and the machinery by itself without skilled labour is of course no use.
I want to keep as much work at Wool-wich as possible, but it is essential to keep private firms at work and therefore, a. certain number of orders must be placed there. One hon. Member speaking of co-operation of the Services asked: Why do you not get some work at Woolwich for the Navy and Air Force? Well, we do. We are now doing a great many orders for both the Navy and Air Force, and in view of the reduction of Army orders we have made a special "whip-up" with the Navy and the Air Force, to give us all the orders they possibly can and they have done so. Another hon. Member asked me about the locomotives which were built at Woolwich, and called upon me to defend
Woolwich in this matter. The actual facts are that. the locomotives cost £1,399,000 according to the cost accountant.

Mr. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman might give us some details.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot do that.

Mr. KELLY: That is not fair to the Committee.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am giving as my authority the cost accountant.

Mr. KELLY: I am not asking for that

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sure the hon. Member is not. They sold for £270,000; so that they actually sold for approximately one-fifth of their cost. When I say so in answer to the hon. Member, I am not advancing it as an argument that Woolwich is inefficient. On the contrary, I do not believe Woolwich is inefficient.

Mr. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman's chief says so.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know about that. I do not believe Woolwich is inefficient in the work it is doing. It is doing good and efficient work. The cost in this case is a figure which seems to require a good deal of explanation, but the work was done at a time when all costs were infinitely higher than to-day's costs, and I daresay the hon. Member is right in saying that private firms costs may at that time have been higher still. I do not know. At any rate, when they came to sell the locomotives, there was a great deal of difficulty, and I can only answer that in the actual result the sale realised about one-fifth of the actual cost. The hon. Member raised another point to which I wish to refer, because I think the workers at Woolwich ought to know what are the considerations which influence the Government in this matter. The hon. Member asked: Why not have all munitions made in the national factory? He does not agree with private firms making munitions at all.
It is a mistake to think that Woolwich is wholly employed in making explosives or the projectiles of explosives. Wool-
wich is engaged in making apparently peaceful things, like tractors and machines for which designs are required. We cannot afford to have at Woolwich the only designers of things like tanks, or internal-combustion engines, or caterpillar tractors. We get the best designs, not only from those at Woolwich, but also from the outside firms, and you cannot get the outside firms in the trade to hand you over their designs unless they are sure of a certain proportion of the orders. As a matter of fact, the dragon—the domesticated dragon—was a design which came from a private firm outside.
11.0.P.M.
It was the best design we could get, and we could not have got it at all unless we had been able to assure the firm that some part of the orders would be placed with them. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward) made some very useful suggestions, but there is only one to which I want to refer. He wanted the doctrine of the guns being cheaper than the gunners well impressed on the Army. I do not know exactly what the doctrine is at this moment, but I entirely agree with him, and I will consult with those whose business it is to lay down fighting doctrines to see what their view is on the subject. With regard to cavalry, I do not think I will answer the questions that have been raised, because the hon. and gallant Members for Upton (Captain Holt) and Brecon (Captain Hall) have both, from personal experience, testified to the House of the use of cavalry in the late War, in interesting speeches which drew the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) dealt with the question of Feltham in a very sketchy fashion. I do not know whether he thinks that we are not entitled to say that those soldiers whose duty it will be to effect heavy repairs to motors and motor vehicles in war are not to he trained and practised—

Mr. KELLY: I did not say that.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I agree—not to be trained or practised in the art of making and assembling those cars in peace time, and if he does net say that, I cannot conceive what his quarrel with us is because we have put 50 of those men in the factory at Feltham.

Mr. KELLY: I said you might have found some way of training those men without having to take them into an establishment at Feltham and displace civilian labour at this time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member either does not know, in which case I will tell him, or else has forgotten to say that Feltham is a military establishment, always designed for the very purpose of being a military establishment, to train and teach and practise the men of the Army in this particular work. He chooses to say that they displace civilian labour, but that is not the right angle from which to look at it at all. Civilian labour is there until the soldiers are ready to take up their share of the work, and for civilian labour to say that the Army in a military establishment is not to bring soldiers in to do the work that they are required to do in war, is an assertion with which I personally cannot agree.
I cannot conceive that there can be any defence of the action of resentment to the soldiers coming into that establishment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate (Brigadier-General Cockerill) was, I think, not unnaturally anxious about the position of the Reserves, and he did not understand why the Reserves have been reduced. The reason is that an extra large number of Reservists have completed their time this year, and will complete their time next year, so that the Reserves, from about, I think, 96,000 have run down several thousands this year and will run down in the following year by at least an equivalent number, if not more. But after that period there will be a gradual increase in the number of men being discharged from the Army and joining the Reserve, and in a few years' time we ought to have a stabilised Reserve.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that we ought to rely upon a Special Reserve, and he made various and interesting suggestions that if we were not prepared to have one infantry battalion of Reservists or Militia for each infantry regiment, we ought to have a battalion amongst grouped regiments, or perhaps one for each Territorial division. All of that is a question of money. You cannot have an additional Militia or Reserve battalion without increasing the expenditure, and I have
got, unfortunately, not an unlimited purse. The pressure to reduce is bad enough, but the pressure against an increase would be overwhelming, and I really cannot pretend there is auy probability of my being able to reestablish the Militia Infantry Reserve in the near future. The Supplementary Reserve has been established. It is the most essential of the gaps that have got to be filled, and is now something like 50 per cent. of its strength, and I am hoping that will increase.
We also had a most interesting speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). I wish I could deal with that in detail. There is, however, a great deal more co-operation between the Services than he seems to be aware of. He pointed out that an Army doctor or some other doctor had discovered that a patient when stripped of his uniform was merely a man, and that he could be treated in any hospital. Curiously enough, that interesting fact has been found already, and in Malta and Singapore the Army hospitals deal with the Navy patients, and vice versa. At Chatham, the naval hospital deals with military patients, and there is no duplication of hospitals there.
Similarly in some of the educational establishments children of both Services are taught, and at Woolwich services are rendered to both the Navy and the Army. At Shoeburyness it is the same. There is, I think, a considerable amount of cooperation in excess of that for which we are given credit. I am sure there is still further scope for co-operation and simplification of the Services. All that I can say is that, as far as the Army is concerned, we are constantly endeavouring to find ground where we can be of use to the sister services, and we are not monopolistic in any sense. We are quite willing to take it from them as well as give it to them.
There is one other somewhat large question, with which I can only deal sketchily, raised by the hon. Member opposite, and that is the question of depots. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) really started the discussion on this subject. The hon. Member opposite said there were 63 depots, and why could there not be an amalgamation so that
some of the overhead expenditure, which is admittedly large, could be reduced, and that if they could not, all be amalgamated into a very few, at any rate they might be amalgamated by linking battalions. I have looked into that. It is an extremely difficult question. There is the absolute essential of maintaining the regimental feeling.
There is no question hut that anything that is damaging to the regimental feeling is really cutting at the root of the voluntary system of the Army. It is a very delicate operation to do anything that even clips it in any sort of way. As to the depots, there are none except those for the use of regiments that have third or fourth battalions which are big enough to hold linked battalions. What is suggested will mean a large building programme, and the capital sum required for this at present has to be borne in mind. Though the linking up of 10 regiments or even 10 battalions in one depot would be useful from the point of view of reducing the cost, it would be extremely expensive from the building point of view. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a subject-matter that will never be overlooked, and it may be possible, at some time or other, early or late, to find accommodation of a larger order than exists at present for the troops. However that may be, I am quite certain that, with proper safeguards for regimental feeling and traditions, an endeavour will be made to secure any economy that can be secured.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman refer to the British Army in India and its stabilisation?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend asks me whether the Army in India is stabilised. Stabilisation is one of my difficulties. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows I have had one cavalry regiment put upon Vote A this year which was not on Vote A last year. While we are in the position of having to maintain an Army, which, among its other duties, is a protection to India, India is not under the same absolute obligation to maintain a given number of British troops upon her Votes. I have, therefore, always to risk it, in the sense of future expenditure put upon these Votes. I cannot say that the position is stabilised; I can only say that
the British troops in India are reduced for the present to the minimum and that there is no great risk of any future troops being put upon the Army Votes in this country.

Mr. STEPHEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman refer to disability pensions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand the hon. Gentleman has raised a special individual case. If he will put a question down later, I will do what I can to answer it.

Mr. KELLY: As to the housing accommodation at Didcot?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Gentleman will look into the Estimates he will sec that quite a considerable sum, £30,000 or £40,000, has been spent at Didcot. I do not pretend that this will house anything like the number of men who are employed as civilians in the district by the War Office.
If I had to burden the Army Votes with the provision of living accommodation for, perhaps, 1,000 men, the Committee would have to be willing to give me £1,000,000 on the top of this Vote, and I cannot really ask them to do that. It really is not the job of the War Office to find civilian housing accommodation on that scale. I am providing it for the pivotal men, but I cannot put on the Votes the housing of men who are not pivotal. Might I now ask the Committee to give me Vote A? There are five Votes for which I shall have to ask the Committee to-night.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am sorry to detain the Committee at this late hour, but it is my misfortune rather than my fault, for I have made an effort to speak all the afternoon and evening, and this is my first opportunity. I promise nut to detain the Committee for long. The Committee have a higher duty to perform than to go into details such as have occupied so much time. We are voting £42,000,000 for what is spoken of as an absolutely necessary service. If I took the same view I would readily grant that the Minister in charge is fulfilling his functions as well as he can under the circumstances, but there is a growing opinion in the country that every Government ought to make an honest effort to find ways and means of getting rid of the entire burden of armies and armaments.
In these accounts what we see is not the entire position but only a partial position. The nation has to bear not merely a burden of £117,000,000 for present armaments, but also the interest on the National Debt arising from past expenditure on armies and armaments. One hon. Member appealed to the Government to explain what part of the army was needed for defensive purposes and what part for expeditionary purposes. The nation must realise that for the last 125 years our army has not had a single occasion to defend the homeland from an enemy that was attacking this country; but during that period the British army has carried on expeditions in many other countries like China, India, Africa and Egypt. It is necessary for the country to realise what part of the £42,000,000 is to be spent on absolutely necessary defensive purposes, and what part for the old war debt and for the old game of land grabbing in other people's countries.
We ought also to consider whether the Army is beginning to operate on the rights and liberties of the civilian population. The Minister for War referred, in his closing remarks, to the Supplementary Reserve; in his opening remarks he said nothing about it. In the Paper with which we have been supplied we are told that only 55 per cent. of the recruits required have been forthcoming. One would like to know if that is an indication that the trade union worker is beginning to recover his common sense and refrain from joining the Supplementary Reserve, or whether the Government are up against certain difficulties which they desire to remove or hope to remove later on. My own request is that the Government will do better justice to themselves, and make a more friendly gesture to the trade unions, if they now drop the whole of this scheme. There is not the slightest doubt that the idea of the Army Supplementary Reserve among the workers is a huge mistake and a gross interference with the spirit of trade unionism itself. In the end, it will prove a failure, and the Government will come out of it with discredit. It would be better for the Government to drop the whole scheme and wipe it out of the Army arrangements, and thus make trade unionists better friends with the Government and thus save them from ultimate defeat.
With regard to the Feltham workers, the explanation of the War Minister I accept as satisfactory, because he says the army workshops there have been created for the purpose of training the soldiers in assembling and handling the machines and materials they would have to handle during war. We have, however, the right to ask the War Office if they made this position perfectly clear to the civilian workers when they took them into their service; or did they tell these civilian workers that the Feltham establishment was to be worked by trade union workers and then suddenly drive out those workers and put in their places army workers? If so, then the civilian workers are entitled to look upon it as a gross breach of trust and confidence, and the Minister has no right to put forward as an excuse that it is necessary to train those men. The true character of the contract ought to have been clearly explained to the trade union workers and they should not have been deceived into coming to work in those shops to be chucked out when there is a dispute between the men and the War Office in which the men's case was right.
A good deal has been said about the cadets and other branches of the army service, but altogether they have treated the army as a machine and as a collection of Robots. In these modern times it is due to the soldiers that they should have greater freedom in the internal control and management of their barracks and their own life, as well as their military discipline and so on, and a larger and larger share must be given to them in the control of their own affairs. And that is not all. Last year the Government took a very serious step, which I look upon as an outrage on the political rights of the soldiers. The soldiers now are enfranchised; they are, from a political point of view, citizens; they have political rights and political duties, and that is not at all a bad thing. If ever anything is going to bring about the genuine spirit of disarmament, it is the political right of the soldiers that will do it, and not the intriguers at Locarno or Geneva, or the League of Nations. When the soldier him self acquires his political outlook, when the soldiers of all countries acquire their political rights, it is the soldiers who will begin to tell the nations the futility of armaments and of carrying on war, however contradictory it may appear to be.
The great injuries done to the world—not only thousands of millions of pounds spent, but millions of murders committed and millions of premature deaths caused—have been entirely due to the teaching of falsehood to the soldiers, to the putting to soldiers of false theories of patriotism, the putting to them of one-sided politics, to keeping the soldiers practically all prisoners, shut off from truth, and from all the honest propaganda and all the honest events that take plate in our daily life. If the soldiers had been left as free as those who misguide and mislead them, and teach them falsehoods, those soldiers would have understood the horrors of war much more quickly than the League of Nations and other intriguers sitting at Geneva. The Government are fully aware that, as the soldier becomes politically conscious, he becomes more averse from armaments and carrying on wars than the ordinary civilian and Parliamentary Members and councillors who sit in comfortable seats and vote for war.
The Government trespassed outrageously upon the rights of the soldiers last year, and introduced quite an innovation. The soldier having received a, political right and a political vote, it is his right to hear all parties and all political claims. It is our right to-day to go to the soldier with the peace letter framed by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it is the soldier's right to sign that peace letter, and if any Home Secretary or War Minister or other Minister, or anybody, interferes, he is unconstitutionally corrupting the soldier's sources of political knowledge and is interfering with his rights. The soldier having received a vote—let me be perfectly frank—if I as a Communist Member am at liberty to go to civilian citizens and say to them that their safety, their good, their country's good, and human good generally, require that they should vote for Communists only—I may be right or wrong—[Interruption]—if I have a right to go to civilian citizens and put forward my claims, I have an equal right to go to the soldier and put forward the same claims. If Cabinet Ministers, if Members of the House of Commons, have a right to listen to me or to buy our literature or not, the soldier elector has the same legal right and the same moral right to buy our literature, to keep it, and to read and study it. He has as much judg-
ment as Cabinet Ministers have, and he knows how to distinguish right from wrong. But because you are afraid of your monopoly of misleading the soldiers and poisoning their minds from youth upwards, you are outrageously interfering with the soldiers' political rights.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not any monopoly, nor have I been interfering with political rights. The hon. Member, I presume, was addressing me?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am sorry if I have trespassed. I have not much to add. I submit that the Government are completely in the wrong. They are talking about constitutional and legal measures, but they have behaved in a most unconstitutional manner in trying to bluff the soldier that he has not a right to buy or read Communist literature and to tell the Communists that they have no right to preach to the soldier. We have a complete right, and also a higher moral duty than the members of the present Cabinet, to tell the soldier about the horrors of war, as to how he is made the victim of a vicious economic system, how he is driven by starvation to take up the job of a hired assassin.

Captain GEE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in referring to His Majesty's soldiers as hired assassins?

The CHAIRMAN: The rules of Order do not coincide with the rules of taste. The hon. Member's observations may or may not be in good taste, but they are not outside the rules of Order.

Mr. MAXTON: Are there no limits to the amount of interruption levelled against one single man?

An HON. MEMBER: What about your side?

Mr. MAXTON: This is a question of a battalion of 400 tackling one man. I want to ask you, Sir, whether you have no right to interfere unless there comes a completely disorderly scene in the House?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly I have the right to interfere to prevent a disorderly scene, but if the Chairman had to interfere in all cases of interruption, his task would be considerably aggravated
and he would have to turn his attention to various quarters of the House.

Mr. MAXTON: May I put it to you, Sir, that besides the question of order, there is the question you raised in reply to the last point of order, the question of taste and sportsmanship.

The CHAIRMAN: In a matter of taste the Chair is not the judge.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I do not resent the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption. I rather feel thankful to him, and I assure him I do not blame the soldier of to-day. But he did not listen to me. I did not say the soldier of to-day is a hired assassin. I said that you are miseducating him.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in referring to you as not educated?

The CHAIRMAN: I confess I have not quite followed the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I have been pointing out that the soldier of the present day is not at all culpable. He is only a victim. He is driven by starvation, and various other methods, to join the Army. He is then kept away from the truth, his ears and brains are packed with falsehoods about patriotism and defence of the country, and by these processes interested and selfish persons make use of the soldier for selfish and sordid ends. At that juncture it becomes our duty, as politicians, to go to the soldier and to tell him to desist from that job of a hired assassin, as he is practically used by others for their purposes. The Government are entirely in the wrong in interfering with the franchise rights and the political rights of the soldier, and the relationship of the soldier as a voter to the political organisations of this country. The Government are so wrong that I can openly declare that not one honourable or honest citizen outside will respect the decision of the Government, but will flout the Government. The soldier is the friend and the brother of the working classes. The soldier suffers and the soldier's family suffers, just the same as the worker and the worker's family suffers, and whatever the Government may do, whatever outrages the Home Secretary may commit, what-
ever exceptional methods the Government may take, and however much they may try to bully the soldier or to frighten the citizen, all honest men will defy an unrighteous Government and will carry on the work of telling the soldier not to fight against the working man.

Lieut-Colonel MOORE: May I—[HON MEMBERS: "Divide!"].—I hope—[Interruption]

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Lord APSLEY: May I remind the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) of what he said a few minutes ago about taste.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to remember that although there was considerable interruption during the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), there was no organised attempt to prevent the hon. Member from speaking.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The reason I have intervened in the Debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—is because, unlike hon. Members who have spoken from the opposite side recently, I have served as a soldier, I have worked with the soldiers and I have loved them for 20 years and I know something about them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I want to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on his being able to cut down the Estimates by £2,000,000. But there is one subject on which I cannot agree with him, and that is the fact that he has selected as a means of cutting down the Estimates the pay of the new entrants into the Army. The economy to be affected must go hand in hand with justice but in this case justice is absent. I refer particularly to Army Order 366, which was issued last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I fear that I hurt the susceptibilities of the party opposite last week, and they have not forgotten it. Under this new Army Order, the pay of officers is to be reduced by two shillings to three shillings in the pound. I do not quarrel with the reduction, but only with the way it has been applied. To demonstrate my point, I would draw attention to the operation of this Order on the parents of cadets who have gone to
Sandhurst or Woolwich, when this bombshell was suddenly dropped on them.
The parents entered into a contract with the War Office on behalf of their boys under which they committed them to a career on certain terms, and pay was actually one of the most important. After about a year the War Office, without any warning, break the contract by saying that the pay is to be reduced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!" Divide!"]—but that further obligation would remain the same. In other words, the War Office say to the young soldier, "You will go to any part of the world we send you, and to any conditions we may send you; if you are married you will be separated from your wife and family, and your pay is to be reduced." [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide:" Divide!"]
That is, in effect, what the War Office say to the young man joining the Army, and it seems to me that the officer is called upon to take every possible risk to his life, his health, his family, and at the end of it all he has got is the information from the War Office that his pay is to be reduced. The young officer is put in a very peculiar position. The War Office commit him to a career for which it is absolutely impossible for him to withdraw, and not only is his pay reduced, but it is subject to the cost of living reductions. I ask the Committee to consider the position of the boys. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] The Army to-day is a democratic institution, in spite of what bon. Members opposite would have us believe. It is a profession to which any boy may aspire; it is a profession to which the sons of some hon. Members opposite have aspired and in which they have done nobly, but it is a profession to which the two hon. Members who are now making the most noise have never belonged. They are not in a position to take an active part in the Debate. The Government have said that all officers should have an opportunity of living on their pay. The father of a young officer is generally a retired officer who has given his whole life to the service of the State, and he wants his sons to carry on the traditions of the family. He has no money beyond his retired pay, but as he wants to see the old name carried on in the old regiment he stinges himself in order to give his boy an education at Sandhurst
or Woolwich. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"], and if the boy has only a mother she will go through purgatory in order to provide sufficient sums for her son to carry on her husband's traditions in the Army. You have to take the ease of the boys themselves. They become, practically, apprentices of the Army. They specialise in Army subjects, and as soon as they enter Woolwich or Sandhurst they cut themselves off from the ordinary educational curriculum. If they do not succeed in entering the Army they are placed in a most invidious position compared with other boys. Is there any justice in that?
I ask the Secretary of State for War to reconsider this question before a final decision is given. We soldiers feel very deeply on the point. We have no trade union to fight for us. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this order may be held to apply only to those cadets who enter Sandhurst or Woolwich after 25th October. Allow the parents full warning, so that they can decide, before they put their boys into Sandhurst, whether or not they can afford this great expense. [Interruption.] I appeal to the sanity and sense of justice of the Government in my request for this concession. I am not going to oppose the Government, nor do I think it would cause the Government any alarm if I did oppose them. On this side of the House we have a feeling of mutual trust and confidence, and we ask the Government to see our point of view in a matter which we feel keenly. [Interruption.]

Mr. D. GRENFELL: hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has not said a word as to possible grievances of the rank and file of the Army. His sole excuse for intrusion in the Debate was to stand up for his own class, the the officer class in the Army. Not a word for the Tommy—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I referred to the democratic classes from which the Army is now drawn, officers and men alike. I did not refer to any single class.

Mr. GRENFELL: Yes, the officer class, the young cadets who cost the country £400 or £500 a year each. Those are the people for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman pours out all his sympathy. Not a word of sympathy has he for the ranker. I suspect that all the concern of
hon. Gentlemen opposite with the Army is due to the fact that they or their friends occupy directional positions in the Army. If hon. Members opposite had been invited to join the Army because they were unemployed, and if they had served as privates, under the conditions and with the pay of privates, their enthusiasm for Army life would not be anything like as strong as it is. It is because they have had good pay and good conditions and have been led to believe that they have superior rights in this country that they are so patriotic. They have to put up with none of the hardships, except in time of war, that the ordinary soldier has to put up with. We who have been taunted with a lack of patriotism have shown perhaps more real patriotism than any hon. Member whose interest in the Army is entirely a social one. It is because they have social prestige and privileges which are denied to the ordinary soldier of this country that they are so very proud of their connection with the Army. We will meet hon. Members opposite on equal terms. Let them send their sorts to join the Army as privates in line regiments and do the heavy work that the ordinary soldier has to do; then we will see how much their zeal is for the Army, when they are getting the same pay and have the same limitations.
I am very much obliged to the hon. Member opposite who gave us such a clear and full revelation of the mind of his class when he had the opportunity to speak as long as he liked to the Minister of War on a great many topics, but whose whole concern was for the hardships of those people who cost this country £400 or £500 a year in being prepared for this profession. The hon. Member has been a captain or a colonel. Perhaps he may now be drawing a pension from the Army; I do not know, but he has had £500 or £600 a year. The miner in this country gets less than £100 on the average. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about his officials?"] The miner's officials? They get nothing like what a captain in the Army gets I can assure you. I have spent several years underground in the mines of this country.

The CHAIRMAN: We are now getting far away from the Army Vote.

Mr. GRENFELL: I was comparing the pay of the average soldier with the pay
of an officer, and the pay of the average working-man with that of the average officer. The average working-man gets about one-fourth or one-fifth of the pay given to a captain in the Army, and one-twentieth of the pay of the higher officers. I claim that the services of the average private soldier are quite as valuable as the services of the officers, and in. the same way that the services of the working-man are quite as necessary and indispensable as the services of the captains of industry. It is because people on the other side of the House claim special privileges for their class that we protest that on this question of service in the Army, Members on the other side should claim for themselves the interest, the patriotism and all the high-sounding terms that they apply to service of this kind, and deny the working people the same interest. Members on the other side who speak to-night in a professional capacity would never show that zeal for the Army that they have had they been forced to go through all the conditions and receive the pay of the private soldier.

Captain GEE: I shall not make any apology for addressing the Committee to-night. I have only intervened in this Debate in order to accept what I think, perhaps, the last speaker meant as a friendly challenge from hon. Members opposite to meet him on equal terms. At all events, I am not going to say one word in defence of any Member who sits in any part of the House who has had the very high distinction of holding His Majesty's Commission, because we have hon. Members in every part of the House—not, I am sorry to say the hon. Member who has just sat down—who have served their country and their King faithfully and loyally. I am not going to say one word in defence of them, because I know from an experience of thirty odd years that they are capable of defending themselves. I am going to say a few words about the rank and file—those who are called "other ranks"—and perhaps the Committee will pardon me if I again remind them that I do know something of what I am talking about. I do not know when this Committee has had to listen to such insults to the Army as we have heard from some hon. Members opposite, and I particularly use the word "some." In every case the
insults have come from people who had not the pluck to join the Army and fight in the war. They were quite content to sow sedition at home while we were fighting for their worthless skins. [Interruption.] Yes, they were quite content to join trade unions and take trade union officials' jobs at higher pay than Tommy Atkins was getting, in order to dodge the trenches. I want to know what do the constituents of the hon. Member who has just sat down think of him—those men of his own industry, the miners, who fought so gallantly? I say that any man who has not the pluck to fight for his country when his country is in danger—

Mr. GRENFELL: Mr. Hope—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"']

Captain GEE: I will not give way.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order that two hon. Members should be on their feet at the same time.

Mr. GRENFELL: If the hon. and gallant Member suggests that I am a coward—

Captain GEE: I decline to give way unless it is a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member does not give way, no other hon. Member can speak.

Mr. GRENFELL: On a point of Order, is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to suggest another hon. Member is a coward; and if so should not that other hon. Member be entitled to say that he is ready to put his courage to the test at any time?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has any reason to complain of what is said, I would remind him that we are now in Committee and that even if we were in the House, he would be allowed to speak afterwards by leave of the House.

12.0 M.

Captain GEE: I make no suggestion that any hon. Member is a coward; I state that the people I have described are cowards. What adds insult to injury is that these people who are now, to use their own phrase, exploiting the private soldier, who stand up in this Committee and talk about the hardships of the private soldier are the very people who have let him down over and over again.
There are hon. Members sitting on the other side who not only fought for their country themselves but whose sons fought, and who in losing members of their families, lost their all. I wonder what they think of those people—I cannot call them men—with whom they have to associate and who sit beside them, people whose names stink in the nostrils of every decent thinking Britisher?

The Chairman rose to Order, but the hon. and gallant Member had already resumed his seat.

PAY, ETC., FOR THE ARMY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,474,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of His Majesty's army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1927.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,944,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including Military and Civilian Staff, and other Charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1927.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
That a suns, not exceeding £3,633,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927.

PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN, AND OTHERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,050,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, ac., which will come in course of pay-
ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1927.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION COMPENSATION AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 240,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation Compensation, and Additional Allowances,

—
—
Gross Excess.
Appropriations-in-aid.
Net Excess.






Class I.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Vote 7
…
…
…
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
4,258
3
11
—
4,258
3
11



Class VI.











Vote 4
…
…
…
Ministry of Pensions.
416,384
10
3
33,538
4
7
382,846
5
8













£387,104
9
7

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOWMENT FUND BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill which was referred to the other day when the Supplementary Estimate was before the Committee of the House. It is a Bill which really has only two Clauses. Clause 1 incorporates the Trustees of the Endowment Fund by the name of the Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund Trustees. They are the Trustees who are being set up for the Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund, and, as was explained the other day in Committee, a sum of £ 5,000,000 is to be contributed, as to 81 per cent. or thereabouts by the funds of the United Kingdom, and as to the balance by the various Dominions who share in the fund. In order that that money shall be in trust perpetually, and that the Income shall be accumulated in order that the capital sum shall be raised, this Bill is brought in to incorporate the Trustees, and, notwithstanding anything in the Charter, the Trustees shall have power to accumulate the income of the fund. Hon. Members will remember that it was stated on the

Gratuities, Injury Grants, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1927."

CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), 1924–25.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 387,104 9s. 7d., be granted to His Majesty to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services for the year ending 31st March, 1925:—

Supplementary Estimates that this Government would contribute £50,000 for the next three years towards the fund, £125,000 for the subsequent two years, and then for each subsequent year £300,000, until the capital reached the British proportion of £5,000,000. The Bill goes on to give the Trustees power to make investments, to accumulate the income, and provide for the audit of the accounts. I do not think there is anything else I could explain to the House, and I trust that a Second Reading can be given. I ought, perhaps, to say that when a Second Reading is given, the Bill, as it affects private interests, has to go before a hybrid Committee, appointed partially by Select Committee and partly nominated by the Government, and has to be considered by them before it comes back to the House.

Major HILLS: I do not want to detain the House long, and I do not wish to oppose the Bill. I merely rise for the purpose of making a suggestion. First of all, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, on the very great interest he has taken in this fund and the very successful way in which the fund has been run. The suggestion I make is this. The Imperial War Graves Commission was founded by Royal Charter, and that Royal Charter went before the Imperial Conference of 1917. I believe it was discussed Clause by Clause, The Charter was amended twice by subsequent imperial
Conferences, and now the Government proposes to make a. further Amendment by Bill. I quite agree that the Bill is necessary for changing our law, and that Sub-section (1) of Section (2) permits an accumulation of interest that is not allowed by British law, but when I come to the rest of the Bill, I do see a grave objection that I hope my right hon. Friend will consider. Supposing we pass this Bill, the fund is contributed to by all the Dominions, and they share with us the work of the Imperial War Graves Commission. Supposing we pass an Act of Parliament, is it not probable that all the Dominions will feel it necessary to bring that Act before the Parliaments of the Dominions? I think, if you put yourself in the position of the Prime Minister of any of these Dominions, that is very likely to occur; and then if that does happen, do we not run some risk of something being passed by the Dominion Parliaments which might conflict with this Act? Up to now, we have gone by Royal Charter, and we have had the consent of the Imperial Conference. If we now proceed by Bill and Act of Parliament, I rather fear there might be some conflict between the views that this House might take and the views that the Parliament of Canada, of Australia, or of South Africa might take. It would be a cumbrous procedure that this matter should go all round the Dominion Parliaments, but the real danger is that there might be some conflict. The Imperial War Graves Commission has been a great act of Imperial co-operation, and it would be very disastrous if that were endangered. I do not want to risk it. I merely suggest the point for the consideration of my right hon. Friend, for I think there is a real risk of something occurring that might endanger the matter. The point can be considered in Committee, or perhaps between now and the Committee stage it might be considered. I need hardly say that in no sense do I oppose the Bill; I merely wanted to point out the danger and to express the hope that the Government would consider it.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): We must proceed by Bill, and, therefore, we must have one. My hon. and gallant Friend admits that Clause 2 must be in
the Bill. He appears to fear—I do not know why—that the Parliaments of the various Dominions may think it necessary to take action, but there is not the slightest danger of any trouble. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has noticed the point that this Bill only deals with our contributions? It does not deal with those of the Overseas Dominions. Therefore, I really cannot imagine why any legislation passed here should come into conflict with the proposals of the Dominions. But my hon. and gallant Friend has achieved the end he had in view, for the Committee point he has raised will be very carefully considered.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. R. McNeill.]

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to th Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Mr. McNeill.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Dalton-in-Furness and part of the rural district of Ulverston, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 2nd day of February, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Little Holland, in the rural district of Tendring, in the county
of Essex, which was presented on the 2nd day of February, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Spalding and the rural district of Spalding, in the parts of Holland, in the county of Lincoln, which was presented on the 2nd day of February, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the burghs of Port Glasgow and Gourock and the parishes of Greenock and Inverkip, in the county of Renfrew, which was presented on the 2nd day of February, 1926, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Read a Second time; and committed to a Standing Committee.

BANK OF ENGLAND (NATIONALISATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this Order, the Standing Orders Committee have reported that the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with. Therefore this Order must be discharged, under Standing Order No. 200a.

Mr. MAXTON: I understood that that would be the ultimate fate of this Measure if the House accepted the Report of the Standing Orders Committee, but I was assuming that, on some appropriate occasion, I should have an opportunity of moving that the Report of the Standing Orders Committee should not be accepted.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the honourable Member is wrong in that. I have looked carefully at Standing Order 200a, and it definitely directs the Chair to rule that the Order shall be discharged. On the 26th May, 1901, there was a similar case.

Mr. MAXTON: When this Bill was dealt with in the House you, Mr. Speaker, told me that I had a right to go before the
Examiners. I went there and was received very courteously, but I was toad that the Examiners had already made up their mind. I then raised the matter before the Standing Orders Committee and I found that their mind was also made up, and now I come before the House and I am told that the Order must be discharged. I have been to the various offices about the building, but I always seem to have arrived too late, and I find that my right as a member of this House has been taken away from me completely and that I can make no really effective protest anywhere, or put forward the case for my Bill. I also learn that I shall have the privilege of paying £12 12s. for trotting round the building to see all these various people. While I accept the meaning of the Standing Order and your interpretation of it, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow the death-knell of this Measure to be postponed until the 24th March, in order to allow me to raise a question of Procedure.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have every desire to meet the hon. Member, but I myself am bound by the Standing Orders of the House. I have to administer them.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not gather that you, Mr. Speaker, are compelled to discharge this Order to-night.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Report of the Examiners of Private Bills an official Report? Has the House no opportunity of revising or discussing the Report of the Examiners?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Examiners act quite independently. With regard to the Standing Orders Committee, it may be that the hon. Member (Mr. Maxton) might be able to devise a Motion, but I do not express any opinion upon that point. It is, however, clearly my duty to carry out the Standing Order, and I am bound, both by the Standing Order and by precedent, to take this action to night.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the decision of the Examiners on this Bill one that is not capable of revision by the House, and, if so, is there any possibility of discussing on any vote the position occupied by the Examiners of Private Bills?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. The Examiners are appointed to us? their own
independent judgment. With regard to Bills before the House, that is a different matter.

Mr. MAXTON: If I take the necessary steps to comply with the Standing Orders, as I presume I am entitled to do, and conform to the Standing Orders which are applicable to Hybrid Bills, can this Bill remain on the Order Paper while those necessary steps are being taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly not. The Order must now he discharged, and the
hon. Member can, if he likes, table a Motion to restore it.

Whereupon the Order was discharged.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes after Twelve o'Clock.